|
P
I C T U R E O F T H E D
A Y
|
Titanic
Stock Certificate
14 April 1912
Where
are your savings heading? (If you have any...)
|
WASHINGTON - House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hoping to hold support among
fellow Republicans, urged GOP senators Tuesday to blame
Democrats if asked about his ethics controversy and
accused the news media of twisting supportive comments
so they sounded like criticism. [...]
DeLay's case is at the heart
of a broader controversy in the House, where Democrats
accuse Republicans of unilaterally changing ethics committee
rules to prevent any further investigation of DeLay.
Republicans have denied the allegation.
The panel arranged a meeting for Wednesday, and Rep.
Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, the senior Democrat,
said he would renew a push for a bipartisan rewrite
of the rules that Republicans put into effect in January
on a party-line vote. Officials in both parties said
they knew of no compromise discussions.
One senior Republican spoke sympathetically of DeLay
after the closed-door meeting.
"I hope he survives, and I hope he will stay in
there and do his job,'' said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
"The power of prayer is
the only thing that will sustain you'' in the
circumstance DeLay is in, Lott added, and he spoke disparagingly
of any Republicans who fail to stand by the Texan. [...]
DeLay has consistently denied any violation of either
law or House rules.
His private remarks to Senate Republicans were in keeping
with the response frequently offered on his behalf by
House Republicans: Blame the Democrats and occasionally
the news media for the scrutiny he faces. House
Republicans intend to follow the script later in the
week, hoping to showcase passage of bankruptcy legislation
and estate tax repeal as a counterpoint to Democratic
charges that they are merely power-hungry. [...] |
WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans
are using the ethics turmoil surrounding House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay to wage a rhetorical duel accusing
each other of skirting tough debates on Social Security,
gas prices and judges.
Hyperbole, no stranger on Capitol Hill, is a key weapon
in a fight tightly coordinated by party leaders.
Republicans lunged first on Wednesday, accusing Democrats
of exploiting questions about who paid for two of DeLay's
trips abroad.
"Tom DeLay did nothing wrong,"
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., told reporters after the weekly
GOP caucus meeting. "There's no evidence of any
breaking of the House rules. What this is, is a political
smear campaign made by an organization, a political
party that is devoid of ideas."
Democrats parried by describing DeLay as the face of
a Republican majority controlled by radical, right-wing
extremists, unfairly wielding power by changing House
ethics rules and threatening to abolish Senate filibusters
- a hallowed tradition that allows senators to stall
legislation with unlimited talk.
"Republicans are engaging
in abuse of power and the American people are paying
the price," said House Democratic leader
Nancy Pelosi of California. Added Rep. Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., "The Republicans in the House of Representatives
are running the most closed and bitterly partisan House
in the history of our country." [...]
On Wednesday, DeLay apologized for "inartful"
phrasing when he said on the day Schiavo died that the
judges involved would have to answer for their decisions
against her parents, who wanted to reconnect her feeding
tube. But he gave no ground on the ethics debate.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
apologized Wednesday for using overheated rhetoric
on the day Terri Schiavo died, but refused to say
whether he supports impeachment of the judges who
ruled in her case.
DeLay backtracked as White
House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush
considers the Texas Republican, who is battling ethics
allegations, a friend, but suggested that the majority
leader is more of a business associate than a social
pal. [...]
"I believe in an independent
judiciary. I repeat, of course I believe in an independent
judiciary," DeLay said.
At the same time, he added, the
Constitution gives Congress power to oversee the courts.
"We set up the courts. We can
unset the courts. We have the power of the purse,"
DeLay said.
Asked whether he favors impeachment
for any of the judges in the Schiavo case, he
did not answer directly.
Instead, he referred reporters
to an earlier request he made to the House Judiciary
Committee to look into "judicial activism"
and Schiavo's case in particular. [...]
He told reporters that he was eager to appear before
the leaders of the House ethics committee to respond
to the conduct allegations.
But in an interview with The Washington Times, published
Thursday, DeLay charged that Democrats had shut down
the panel to prevent him from clearing his name. [...]
DeLay charged that Democrats actually
want the work of the committee thwarted so that they
can protect one of their own members, Rep. Jim McDermott
of Washington, who is under scrutiny in connection with
the illegal leak of a tape recording of a Republican
congressman's cellphone conversation.
The Republican-controlled House this year changed the
rules for ethics probes, contending that greater fairness
was needed toward members under investigation. Democrats
are trying to overturn those changes, arguing they were
designed to block any new investigations of DeLay by
requiring at least one Republican vote to proceed. That
fight has effectively paralyzed the committee. [...]
Amid all the outrage, memories appear short. For example,
when polls showed a majority of people disapproving
of Congress's March 20 vote allowing federal judges
to intervene in Schiavo's case, Democrats started throwing
the word Schiavo into their list of grievances.
Yet no Senate Democrats filed an objection
to the bill, nor did they show up for the final vote.
In the House, 102 Democrats, including Pelosi, didn't
show up for the vote there in the early morning hours
of March 21.
On the Republican side, Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist of Tennessee professes wonder at Democratic leader
Harry Reid's threat to bring the Senate to a halt if
the GOP abolishes the filibusters Democrats have used
to block President Bush's judicial nominees.
The threat to shut down operations
"baffles me," Frist said. It shouldn't. Frist
was a member of the newly minted GOP majority that shut
down the government in the 1990s during a budget standoff
with President Clinton.
The near-term stakes include
DeLay's future in Congress and whether a bitter standoff
over judicial nominations might preclude action on tax
cuts, Social Security changes and other Bush priorities.
[...] |
When Congress rushed to give unprecedented
new powers to law enforcement in the weeks after the
9/11 attacks, debate was limited and the vote was overwhelming:
357-66 in the House and 98-1 in the Senate. As portions
of the "USA Patriot Act" law come up for renewal,
that's unlikely to happen again, fortunately.
After three years of Justice Department stonewalling
about use of the law and numerous reports of abuses,
an unusual coalition is forming to demand changes in
its most troublesome sections.
Conservative Republican Sen. Larry
Craig of Idaho, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee
John Kerry, the American Civil Liberties Union and the
American Conservative Union don't work together often.
But they're just a few of the strange political bedfellows
calling for a rollback in provisions that threaten civil
liberties and privacy rights.
That span of opposition should be a signal to those
who've been trying for more than two years to ram through
legislation making the law permanent. But many of them
still murmur about only "technical changes"
while demanding additional investigative tools that
raise further questions.
The conspiracy indictment disclosed
Tuesday of three men already awaiting trial in England
is a reminder that terrorism is a real threat, and most
of the law is non-controversial.
Portions of it removed barriers to the exchange of
information among law enforcement and foreign intelligence
agencies. But other sections are far less benign:
• The law allows secret searches of any home
or business by federal agents, with no deadline to notify
the owners or occupants that a search has taken place.
This has been used against innocent citizens.
• It authorizes collection of personal information
from libraries, businesses and medical providers even
if there is no evidence of any connection with terrorism.
And those ordered to supply the information are barred
from letting anyone know that Big Brother is engaging
in such activities.
• The law defines domestic terrorism so broadly
it could be applied to completely unrelated acts, even
peaceful protests.
The Justice Department's response is
essentially, "Trust me." Appearing before
Congress last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
insisted that the administration has been careful with
the law and has made limited use of the most controversial
provisions. He said the authority to investigate libraries
hasn't been used - but he wants to keep it.
The record shows government can't be
trusted to protect privacy rights, and the law has been
abused.
After months of denials that turned out to be false,
the Justice Department reversed itself and acknowledged
April 5 that it had secretly searched the home of an
Oregon lawyer who was wrongly accused of being a perpetrator
of last year's train bombings in Madrid. He was never
told of the search.
A Muslim student in Idaho was prosecuted
because he posted Internet links to objectionable materials,
even though identical links were available on the Web
sites of a major news outlet and the government's own
expert witness in the case.
And while the granting of unprecedented law-enforcement
powers was justified as essential to the special needs
of the war on terrorism, the act's
provisions have been used in criminal investigations
as mundane as a Las Vegas bribery probe.
The need to renew portions of
the Patriot Act due to expire at the end of the year
gives Congress the opportunity to take a careful look
at the entire law - and this time show as much
respect for the rights of ordinary citizens as for the
demands of law enforcement. |
ULM, Germany - When he returned
to this city five months later, his friends didn't believe
the odyssey he recounted. Masri said he was kidnapped
in Macedonia, beaten by masked men, blindfolded, injected
with drugs and flown to Afghanistan, where he was imprisoned
and interrogated by U.S. intelligence agents. He said
he was finally dumped in the mountains of Albania.
"One person told me not to tell this story because
it's so unreal, no one would listen," said Masri,
a German citizen who was
born in Lebanon.
A Munich prosecutor has launched
an investigation and is intent on questioning U.S. officials
about the unemployed car salesman's claim that he was
wrongly targeted as an Islamic militant. Masri's
story, if true, would offer a rare firsthand look at
one man's disappearance into a hidden dimension of the
Bush administration's war on terrorism.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. authorities have used
overseas detention centers and jails to hold or interrogate
suspected terrorists, such as at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Many of the estimated 9,000 prisoners in U.S. military
custody were captured in Iraq, but others, like Masri,
were allegedly picked up in another country and delivered
to U.S. authorities in Afghanistan or elsewhere for
months of confinement.
A CIA spokesman declined to comment on Masri's case,
but White House, Justice Department and CIA officials
have long argued that U.S. laws authorize such covert
operations. They say U.S. officials have been given
assurances in every case that no one is tortured.
"This is not a rogue agency on
these issues," said a former senior CIA official
who is familiar with the practice. "All these programs
have been done under strict supervision, and have saved
lives."
The German government is investigating Masri's allegations.
"I have no indication that Masri is not telling
the truth," Munich prosecutor Martin Hofmann said
in a recent interview. Hair analysis - which can identify
malnourishment and whether someone spent time in a certain
part of the world - suggests that Masri was maltreated
and could have been in Afghanistan in early 2004, said
his lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic.
"I cannot bring kidnapping charges
against a country," Hofmann said. "Decisions
now have to be made by higher German authorities. Bearing
in mind the politically explosive nature of this case,
I still believe it can be handled swiftly."
Masri's allegations come at a sensitive time for Washington
and Berlin. President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder met last month to help mend ties in the wake
of Germany's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq. German officials are troubled by the possible
kidnapping of one of their citizens but do not want
to jeopardize cooperation with Washington in the war
on terrorism. There also is the
question of what role, if any, German intelligence played
in Masri's disappearance.
Masri, a stout man with combed-back black hair, may
have run into trouble because of his name and place
of worship.
His mosque, the Multicultural House in Ulm, has been
under surveillance by German authorities as a haven
for radical mullahs and extremists. Some of its worshipers
enlisted with militants in Chechnya, the breakaway Russian
republic. Suspected Al Qaeda member Reda Seyam, who
was arrested after the 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali,
Indonesia, and later released, had spent time in the
Ulm mosque and once borrowed a car belonging to Masri's
wife.
In a twist that raises the possibility of mistaken
identity, U.S. intelligence services have listed a Khaled
el-Masri as a suspected terrorist operative with ties
to Osama bin Laden. That Masri, still believed to be
at large, allegedly persuaded several of the Sept. 11
hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, to train in Bin Laden's
camps in Afghanistan.
These factors may have converged as Masri sat on a
bus that New Year's Eve.
Masri, a father of four, said he was having family
problems and decided to escape his small apartment for
a short holiday in Macedonia. This account raises doubts
among some German officials, but Masri is adamant that
he needed time away from his wife.
The tenor of the trip changed about 3 p.m. when his
passport was confiscated after the bus crossed the Serbian
border into Macedonia. Three hours later, Masri said,
he was waiting for his documents to be returned when
"two guys in plainclothes and carrying pistols
arrived and asked me if I had connections to Islamic
organizations. I told them no. They questioned me until
10 p.m. and then they put me in a car."
Masri said he was taken to a hotel in the capital,
Skopje, and was guarded by Macedonian teams of three
men working in shifts. He said he demanded to see an
official from the German Embassy but no one came. He
tried to flee, he said, but was threatened with guns.
On the seventh day of his confinement, he said, a man
photographed him and took his fingerprints. Another
man Masri described as the "big boss" offered
him a deal.
"The big boss said too
many days had passed," he said. "He told me
if I admitted to belonging to Al Qaeda, they'd deport
me to Germany. I refused. They kept asking so many questions
about my life. How often did I pray? Did I drink alcohol?
Did I belong to the Muslim Brotherhood? Did I know extremists?
They asked all their questions
in English, and I only know a little English.
They didn't allow me to call
my wife."
Masri said he told his interrogators that he attended
the Ulm mosque for prayers but had no connections to
extremists. He said he was then accused of having a
fake passport and of being an Egyptian who had spent
time in Afghanistan. He was denied legal representation,
he said, and began a hunger strike on his 13th day in
the hotel.
Ten days later, on Jan. 23, a man with
a video camera told Masri to stand against a wall and
ordered him to say that he was in good physical condition
and was being taken to the airport to fly to Germany,
Masri said. He was then blindfolded and put in a car.
"We drove for a while and I could hear airplanes.
I was led into a room. The door closed behind me and
I was beaten from all sides for about one minute. They
bent my arms to my back and cut off my clothes. I heard
the click, click of a camera. For a moment, they took
off the blindfold. I saw seven to eight men all dressed
in black and wearing masks. I tried to keep on my underpants
but they ripped them off. They put me in diapers and
a dark blue sweatsuit with the legs and sleeves cut
out."
He said he was led to a plane with his hands tied behind
his back and shackles on his feet. "They put earplugs
in my ears and a sack over my head. They put me on the
floor and injected me with something. I went black.
At some point, I smelled the kind of alcohol they have
in a hospital. I received another injection."
Aviation documents viewed by the Los
Angeles Times show that a jet registered to a U.S. company
landed at the Skopje airport at 8:51 p.m., Jan. 23,
2004. The plane's tail number was N313P and was registered
to Premier Executive Transport Services Inc., a Massachusetts
firm with reported connections to the CIA. No phone
numbers are listed for the company or its directors.
The jet left Skopje more than three hours later, and
its destination - first disclosed by the German television
program "Frontal 21" - was Kabul, the Afghan
capital, with a stopover in Baghdad.
When he was taken off the plane, Masri said, he was
put into the trunk of a car and driven about 10 minutes.
"I awoke in a small, dirty cell," he said.
"It was like a basement room with a tiny window.
There was Arabic and Farsi writing on the wall from
other prisoners. It was then I knew I was in Afghanistan."
His cell was in a block with about five other cells,
he said, adding that his fellow inmates included three
Saudis, two Tanzanians, a Pakistani who had been living
in the U.S. and a Yemeni.
Masri said he was not tortured while
in Afghanistan but was photographed naked. A doctor
who spoke English and wore jeans and a checkered shirt,
and who was identified through an interpreter as an
American, once drew blood from him, he said, adding,
"I complained to the doctor about the dirty drinking
water in my cell and he said, 'That's not our problem,
that's the Afghans' problem.' "
Masri said one interrogator, a man
with a Lebanese accent, told him: "You are in a
country where there are no laws and nobody knows where
you are. Do you know what this means?"
Over the next several months, Masri said, the cycle
was the same. He was let out of his cell a few minutes
a day. Some nights, he said, men wearing masks took
him into a room where he was questioned for 30 minutes
to two hours. Two of his interrogators,
he said, identified themselves as Americans.
He said the Americans questioned him about 10 times.
He also was interrogated a few times by a German-speaking
man who identified himself as Sam.
"The questions were all the same," Masri
said. "They really wanted to know about the mosque
and the Islamic information center in Ulm. They asked
me if I knew Mohamed Atta. But the questions were never
about specific acts…. I kept asking to see German
authorities. I went on a hunger strike for 37 days.
"I passed out on the 35th day. The American doctor
came on the 37th day with the American head of the prison.
They told me to stop the hunger strike. I was fastened
to a chair and my head was pulled back and a tube was
pushed into my nose and I was fed a liquid that tasted
like chocolate."
A little later, on May 28, 2004, Masri said, he was
taken from his cell and blindfolded. He said he was
put on a plane and flew to Tirana, the Albanian capital.
Masri said that when the plane landed he was given his
passport, put in a van and driven three hours through
the mountains. He was dropped
off and the van disappeared. "I walked 500 meters.
I had long hair and a beard. I came to a checkpoint
and asked where I was," Masri said. "A guard
told me I was at the Albanian-Macedonian border. Then
he said I was in the country illegally because I didn't
have an entry stamp in my passport. He said, 'You look
like a terrorist.' I told him my story. He laughed."
The guards loaded him into a van and drove him through
the mountains to the Mother Teresa Airport in Tirana.
He said he was put on a plane that landed in Frankfurt,
Germany. Hours later he arrived in Ulm. His
apartment was empty except for unpaid bills. His wife
and four children were gone; they had moved to Lebanon
when he failed to return months earlier.
"No one said, 'Sorry, we made a mistake,' "
Masri said. "I just want to find out what happened
and why it happened. I want those responsible to be
punished."
He was never charged with a crime.
|
WASHINGTON - This city has its
share of demanding, furniture-chewing, volatile bosses
- and then there's U.N. ambassador-nominee John R. Bolton,
according to underlings at the State Department.
"It's an 800-pound gorilla devouring a banana,"
Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the department's bureau
of intelligence and research, told Congress this week
in recounting Bolton's treatment of an analyst further
down the food chain.
Current and past government employees drew a truly
unflattering portrait of Bolton, the undersecretary
of state for arms control who has been tapped by President
Bush to be the U.S. diplomat at the United Nations,
the world's peacekeeping organization.
"Tirades," "finger-shaking"
and "red in the face" were among the words
and descriptions in testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and written transcripts of interviews
released by the panel.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to the nominee's
defense on Wednesday. "That is certainly not the
John Bolton I know," said Rice, who moved to the
State Department from the White House in January.
At the Senate hearing, officials recalled Bolton's
anger after an intelligence analyst, Christian P. Westermann,
tried to change the language in Bolton's speech about
whether Cuba was developing chemical and biological
weapons.
"Midlevel ... munchkin analyst" was how Bolton
described Westermann, a retired Navy lieutenant commander
with 23 years of experience in the service and a handful
of years on intelligence research at the State Department.
Westermann described for committee staff his encounter
with Bolton.
"And he got red in the face and
shaking his finger at me and explained to me that I
was acting way beyond my position, and for someone who
worked for him. I told him I didn't work for him,"
Westermann said. "Basically threw me out of his
office."
In testimony Monday, Bolton said he lost trust in Westermann
and thought he should work on other assignments. He
dismissed the brouhaha, saying, "There is nothing
there, there, and I would put it all out on the public
record - all of it."
According to the transcripts, Bolton told Thomas Fingar,
the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Intelligence
Research, about his encounter with Westermann, and indicated
he was stunned at the analyst's attitude.
Bolton said that he himself "was
the president's appointee, that he had every right to
say what he believed, that he wasn't going to be told
what he could say by a midlevel INR (Intelligence Research)
munchkin analyst," Fingar said.
Ford, who has worked for Vice President Dick Cheney
and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, told the
senators that Bolton was the "quintessential kiss-up,
kick-down sort of guy. There are a lot of them around.
I'm sure you've met them."
"But the fact is that he stands
out, that he's got a bigger kick and it gets bigger
and stronger the further down the bureaucracy he's kicking."
The Republican-controlled committee
is expected to approve Bolton's nomination and send
it to the full Senate. Democrats did succeed
on Wednesday in forcing a delay in the committee vote
until next week so State Department officials can be
questioned in writing. |
[Editor's Note:
A popular hobby of late among some 9-11 researchers seems
to involve disparaging the efforts of, and questioning
the motives of, those researchers who refuse to ignore
the fact that the available evidence is entirely inconsistent
with the crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon. These individuals
generally refer to certain other Pentagon investigators
as "no-plane" theorists. For the purposes of this article,
I have adopted a name for them as well: Tattoo theorists.
This appellation is, of course, an homage to the "Fantasy
Island" character best known for the tag line, "Ze plane!
Ze plane!"
Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists,
by the way, are Jim Hoffman and Brian Salter, both of
whom were on the other side of the fence, so to speak,
until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone
who quit smoking and thereafter embarked on a mission
to browbeat and berate every other smoker on the planet,
then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists
operate.]
On February 24, Brian Salter (questionsquestions.net) posted a histrionic
denunciation
of Pentagon "no-plane" theorists that included the bizarre
claim that any efforts to "keep the unnecessary no-plane
speculation alive just helps to smear 9-11 Truth activists
as hateful maniacs. Maybe that's the idea."
Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has
figured out our diabolical plot. All along, the real goal
has been to cast 9-11 researchers as - dare I say it?
- hateful maniacs. In fact, the 'talking points' that
I receive from my secret CIA backers routinely contain
such notations as: "Operation
Hateful Maniacs is, as you know, proceeding on
schedule; prepare to shift into the next phase of the
program, Operation Deranged
Psychopaths."
Of course, it could also be that those of us who continue
to focus on the glaring inconsistencies in the official
story of what happened at the Pentagon are actually pursuing
the truth, which is what a "Truth activist" is
supposed to do, rather than peddling entirely speculative drivel about a mythical
'plane bomb,' which is what the Tattoo theorists choose
to do.
The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists
is to cast "no-plane" theorists as part of a Cointelpro-type
operation aimed at undermining the 9-11 skeptics' case.
The "no-plane" theories, it is claimed, are "straw man"
arguments, propped up specifically so that they can be
easily brushed aside by "debunkers," thus discrediting
the 9-11 movement in its entirety by attacking at points
of greatest vulnerability.
In his blog, Salter claims "media debunkers have shown
maximum enthusiasm for portraying [Pentagon no-plane theories]
as the heart and soul of 9/11 skepticism and making it
the centerpiece of practically every hit piece." (http://questionsquestions.net/blog/)
Hoffman has written that "the prominence of the no-757-crash
theory will damage the cause, particularly as it reaches
a wider audience less inclined to research the issue ...
The mainstream press is casting the no-757-crash theory
as a loony construct of conspiracy theorists, and representative
of all 9/11 skepticism." (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html)
Mark Robinowitz has joined the chorus by claiming "'No
Planes' has been the most effective means to discredit
issues of complicity inside the Beltway." (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html)
Obviously then, everyone is in agreement (as if they were all reading the same 'talking points')
that we must immediately drop all support for the "no-plane"
theories, because if we don't, we will continue to furnish
the enemy with useful ammunition with which to attack
and discredit us. Sounds like a good plan -- except for
the fact that it is based on a false premise.
The reality is that there have been almost no mainstream
media 'debunkings' of the 9-11 skeptics' case, and there
is a very good reason for that: the cumulative case that
has been painstakingly compiled is (despite the spirited
efforts of people like the Tattoo theorists) a formidable
one that major media outlets, along with most so-called
'alternative' media outlets, have wisely chosen not to
confront.
By far the most ambitious, high-profile media 'debunking'
of the claims made by 9-11 skeptics has been the hit piece
that graced the cover of the March 2005 edition of Popular Mechanics magazine (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html).
Since it is known that this article was co-written by
Benjamin Chertoff, reportedly a cousin of our very own
Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, then
it is probably safe to assume that a primary objective
was to knock down all the 'straw men' arguments that had
been carefully planted and nurtured by government operatives.
That is, after all, how this game is played, as the Tattoo
theorists readily acknowledge.
We should, therefore, expect to find that the Popular Mechanics article focuses considerable
attention on the Pentagon "no-plane" theories, and on
the Pentagon attack in general. But what we find instead
is quite the opposite; instead of emphasizing questions
about the Pentagon, the issue is downplayed
and given very little attention -- which isn't
really surprising given that the attack on the Pentagon
has always been, from day one, relegated to
the status of a relatively insignificant footnote.
The PM article
presents what it says are the top sixteen claims made
by 9-11 skeptics, coupled with what are supposed to be
'debunkings' of each of those claims. The claims are grouped
into four categories, which are presented in the following
order: "The Planes" (the ones that hit the towers); "The
World Trade Center" (the collapse of the towers); "The
Pentagon"; and "Flight 93." Five of the sixteen claims
examined concern the collapse of the WTC towers, four
concern Flights 11 and 175, four concern Flight 93, and
just three concern the Pentagon attack. In terms of word
count, the article runs (minus the introduction) about
5,200 words, and it breaks down roughly as follows: collapse
of towers - 2,050 words; WTC planes - 1250 words; Flight
93 - 1150 words; and the Pentagon - a paltry 750 words.
So if we are to use the focus of mainstream media attacks
to gauge the points of greatest vulnerability in the 9-11
skeptics' case, then, in terms of both word count and
number of claims examined, the collapse of the Twin Towers
would be, by far, the weakest leak in the chain (which
is kind of ironic, when you think about it, considering
that most, if not all of the Tattoo theorists actively
promote the theory that the towers were brought down with
explosives). As for Pentagon "no-plane" theories, they
are, according to the given criteria, the point of least
vulnerability.
If we use the criteria of prominence of placement on the
list, then the point of greatest vulnerability would be
theories concerning the planes that hit the towers. Indeed,
the very first claim that is examined concerns the notorious
"pod plane" theories, and the third delves into the equally
inane issue of 'windowless jets.' These are, of course,
some of the real
areas of vulnerability in the 9-11 skeptics' case. And
though they are frequently linked to Pentagon theories,
they are entirely separate issues.
Claims concerning the Pentagon attack don't make an appearance
on the Popular Mechanics list until well into the
second half of the article. And once they do appear, they
are given very little print space. The three claims 'debunked'
in the PM piece
barely scratch the surface of the cumulative case that
has been built to challenge the official version of the
Pentagon attack. And the 'debunking' of even these cherry-picked
'claims' is pathetically inept. The undeniable lack of
aircraft debris from the alleged crash, for example, is
brushed aside with nothing more than this ludicrous emotional
appeal from an alleged blast expert and witness to the
aftermath of the attack: "I saw the marks of the plane
wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of
the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in
my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the
black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members
in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
You would think that if the Pentagon attack theories were
the 'straw men' that the Tattoo theorists claim, then
the 'debunkers' would be better prepared to knock those
straw men down, and they would devote more print space
to doing so. Instead, we find the Pentagon attack being
downplayed in
a major media attack on the 9-11 skeptics movement --
at the very same time, curiously enough, that a number
of 9-11 skeptics have begun aggressively demanding that
all "unnecessary speculation" about the Pentagon attack
be dropped, and at
the very same time that a new purported Pentagon skeptics'
site suddenly appeared, professionally
designed and complete with new interviews and photos (from
insider sources), numerous omissions, copious amounts
of spin and disinformation, a new DVD for sale, and, of
course, enthusiastic backing from the Tattoo theorists
and other 9-11 skeptics.
I have to say, quite frankly, that all of this just seems
too well choreographed for my tastes. And, I have to also
say that the Tattoo theorists' recent efforts to bury
the Pentagon "no-plane speculation" seem rather desperate
and overreaching. Consider, for example, the opening lines
of the Salter post that I referenced at the beginning
of this rant:
The latest escapade in
the frantic effort to "keep the faith" amongst the Pentagon
no-plane cult is the announcement of a great new "smoking
gun". It turns out that a key figure in the Gannon scandal,
GOPUSA.com president Bobby Eberle, who was a key White
House go-between, testified that he witnessed the Pentagon
strike on 9/11. Well, there's only one logical conclusion
that anyone could draw from this -- that all of the witness
testimony supporting the crash of a 757 airliner into
the Pentagon is all part of a vast fraudulent conspiracy
masterminded by Bobby Eberle! As the Xymphora blog tells
it, with breathless drama:
"Forget about Gannon.
The only reason he has been interesting is the prurient
part of his story. I'm reading more and more about how
everyone in the White House, up to and including Rove
and Bush, is as gay as Paul Lynde, which just reflects
the deep homophobia in the coverage of Gannongate. The
gay aspect is a red herring. The deep politics aspect
of the story is the connection between the White House,
conservative e-mail harvester and fundraiser Bruce W.
Eberle, and GOPUSA President Bobby Eberle. Bobby Eberle's
eyewitness testimony of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon
is the big break we've been waiting for, the first tiny
window into the American conspiracy behind 9-11."
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/02/gannongate-and-9-11.html
While I certainly do not agree with everything that Xymphora
has written here concerning the Gannon scandal, it is immediately
apparent that Salter is grossly misrepresenting the situation.
Specifically, no one that I know of, and certainly no one
cited by Salter, has claimed that Bobby Eberle "masterminded"
a vast conspiracy. Indeed, Xymphora's actual position is
clearly stated in another excerpt that Salter has thoughtfully
posted: "I
have speculated that at least some of the witnesses to
the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon were ringers
planted by the conspirators. What are the chances that
Eberle, whose name has come up prominently in Gannongate,
was an eyewitness to the crash? Those who are so certain
that the testimony of eyewitnesses means that Flight 77
must have crashed into the Pentagon, despite the enormous
amount of physical evidence to the contrary, just might
want to give their heads a shake and rethink things. If
the evidence of the crash of Flight 77 is so goddamn clear,
why did the operators in the Republican Party feel the
need to gild the lily?"
That is, I must say, a perfectly legitimate question
-- although Salter dismisses it by proclaiming that "there
is no basis to claim that Eberle's testimony represented
an effort to 'gild the lily.'" Salter's position might be
a valid one if - and this is a very big "if" - Eberle was
the only political operative that stepped out of the shadows
with an unlikely account of the attack on the Pentagon.
But he wasn't the only one. Not by a long shot.
Of course, that fact might not be immediately apparent
to anyone relying upon the witness
list assembled by French researcher Eric Bart, which
is the witness list that virtually all of the Tattoo theorists
routinely cite as the 'most complete' list (Salter calls
it "the most extensive available," Robinowitz touts it as
"perhaps the best list of eyewitness accounts," pentagonresearch.com
describes it as a "comprehensive
witness list," and Hoffman has paid
tribute by re-posting the list). In truth, however, Bart's
list is not by any means a complete list, though it is certainly
the most imposingly long list. Most of that length, however, is
due to extensive padding. As it turns out, a substantial
portion of the entries on the list are not witness accounts
at all; instead, they fall into one of the following categories:
- News reports that retell the official story without
citing any specific witnesses.
- Statements by official government spokesmen who were
not themselves witnesses to the attack.
- Hearsay accounts.
- Reports that have nothing to do with what did or did
not hit the Pentagon (such as an air traffic control
report, two seismic reports, a Navy report on treating
blast injuries, a Federation of American Scientists
report on blast effects, an engineer's report on the
reinforcement work done on the Pentagon, and, most bizarrely,
a Washington Post
report on the creation of the Information Awareness
Office).
- Accounts of rescue workers who tended to the wounded.
As for the potential witnesses that are included on the
Bart list, roughly half of them offer no information that
is useful for determining what really happened at the Pentagon.
About three dozen of the cited witnesses were inside the
building complex at the time of the attack; their accounts
describe only the explosion and/or the smoke and fire, offering
no clue as to what caused that explosion and fire (although
there are numerous reports of multiple explosions, and a
few reports of the smell of cordite, none of which lend
much weight to the official legend). Similarly, many of
the outside witnesses could be described as 'earwitnesses';
these individuals heard
something fly by, and/or they heard
(or felt) an explosion at the Pentagon, but they did not
actually see anything. Other witnesses saw the fireball
or smoke cloud, but not what caused it.
After editing the Bart list to eliminate all the
non-witnesses and all the irrelevant witnesses, what is
left is, at most, 70 witnesses who claim to have seen something
flying in the vicinity of, approaching, or actually crashing
into, the Pentagon. So much for the endlessly cited "hundreds
of witnesses" that the Tattoo theorists can't seem to stop
talking about (even the brazen liars at Popular
Mechanics, by the way, acknowledge that there were
"dozens of witnesses," not hundreds) ...
Something else, by the way, that the Tattoo theorists love
to talk about is how the dastardly "no-planers" like to
pluck portions of witness statements out of context, particularly
in the case of oft-cited USA
Today reporter/witness Mike Walter. Given the manner
in which Mr. Bart presents the testimony of 'witnesses'
like Scott Cook, I'm sure that those in the opposing camp
will understand why I say: "pot, meet kettle." According
to Bart (and, by extension, all the Tattoo theorists who
have endorsed and/or re-posted his list), this is Cook's
account of the Pentagon attack:
It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river
in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol,
ran past the White House and the Washington Monument,
up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level
and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon (...)
As we watched the black plume gather strength, less
than a minute after the explosion ...
As presented, Cook's recollection appears to be a very specific
account of the approach and crash of a 757 aircraft into
the Pentagon. In fact, it appears to be an impossibly
specific account, since no witness at the scene could
have know, at the time of the alleged crash, that the plane
had flown out of Dulles. But Mr. Cook never actually made
such a claim. For the record, here is how Scott Cook's 'witness'
account read before it was deceptively (and apparently quite
deliberately) edited by Eric Bart:
We didn't know what
kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had
hit. Later,
we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles,
which had come up the river in back of our building,
turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White
House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn,
then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington
Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former
Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles
an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its
last 10 seconds of flight. (The more I’ve thought
about it since, the odder the choice of the Pentagon
as a target appeared. The Pentagon is a huge pile of
concrete, the walls over a foot thick, and no plane
is big enough to do more than superficial damage to
it. Had the hijackers chosen to dive into the Capitol
or the White House, much smaller sandstone buildings
with little internal framework, the damage and the death
toll would have been infinitely higher. Both houses
of Congress were in session, and in addition Laura Bush
was in the building, preparing to testify to some committee
about school reading programs. I guess the symbolism
of the Pentagon was more important to the terrorists,
who blamed the US military for everything, much like
Chomskyites blame everything on the CIA. As horrible
as it sounds, the hit on the Pentagon may have been
a blessing.) As we watched the black plume gather
strength, less than a minute after the explosion ...
It is quite obvious that what Cook actually said was that
even though both he and his partner were positioned to witness
the alleged plane and the alleged crash, and therefore should have witnessed the alleged plane and the
alleged crash, neither one of them actually saw anything
of the sort. Far from confirming the official account of
the alleged crash, Mr. Cook appears to have been somewhat
bewildered by it. Of course, you would never know that from
reading through Eric Bart's 'witness' list -- which raises
the question of why, if the 'witness' evidence is so compelling,
Eric Bart felt the need to gild the lily.
Scott Cook, by the way, wasn't the only one who missed seeing
the plane that day. One of the non-witnesses on Bart's list,
Tom Hovis, had these thoughts to share: "Strangely, no one
at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar
should have also picked up the aircraft I would think."
Well ... yeah ... I would tend to think so as well -- but
I guess those terr'ists were just real sneaky or something,
stealthily flying that large aircraft into Washington without
it registering either visually or on radar.
But then again, maybe not, since I see that, according to
the very same Tom Hovis, "The plane had been seen making
a lazy pattern in the no-fly zone over the White House and
US Cap." According to witness Clyde Vaughn, "There wasn't
anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked
like it was loitering over Georgetown …" And journalist
Bob Hunt claimed that he "talked to a number of average
people in route who said they saw the plane hovering over
the Washington Mall Area ..."
I have to confess my ignorance here, since, to be perfectly
honest, I didn't even know that it was possible for a passenger
plane to hover.
Despite the fact that I have the good fortune of living
under the approach path of the local airport, and have therefore
seen more than my share of airplanes, I have personally
never seen one hover, even briefly. But since this information
is not only included on Pentagon witness lists, but is attributed
to average people,
then I know it must be true (just as it must be true that
the plane actually dive-bombed into the Pentagon, as at
least five witnesses saw it do, and it must simultaneously
be true that the plane actually hit or scraped the ground
before impacting the building, as at least five other witnesses
have claimed, and it must also be true that there was a
second plane, since at least nine witnesses saw it).
So, this is apparently the situation that existed at around
9:30 AM the morning of September 11, 2001: both World Trade
Center towers had been attacked and hundreds of people were
already dead or dying; not just the nation, but the entire world was watching and knew that
America was being attacked by hijacked aircraft, some of
which were reportedly still in the air and still very much
a threat; the nation's defenses were, presumably, on the
highest state of alert; and, in the midst of it all, a hijacked
aircraft was - as would be expected, I suppose - leisurely
cruising through the most secure airspace in the known world,
over the most sensitive political and military installations
in the country, with nary a military jet in sight.
Now, some may find this pre-suicide sightseeing by the terr'ists
to be somewhat odd, but my guess is that they were probably
stalling to allow time for all the news crews to get set
up so that they could capture all the nonexistent photographs
and video footage that we are still waiting to see. Either
that, or those ballsy terr'ists were actually taunting the
U.S. military, daring the fighter jets to come out and play,
knowing full well that a squadron of F-16s are no match
for an unarmed 757. But here I digress ...
In the interest of compiling a more complete (and accurate)
list of witnesses than that presented by Bart, I went searching
elsewhere and found that there are actually many more purported
witnesses of the Pentagon attack. Some of the names that
Bart has conveniently chosen to leave off are painfully
obvious lily-gilders. Others have told stories that are,
I have to say, laughably absurd. Consider, for example,
the tale told by purported witness Dennis Smith, who was
supposedly "smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard
[of the Pentagon] when he heard the roar of engines and
looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before
it exploded into the building."
Now, I obviously can't say for sure what was in that 'cigarette'
that Dennis was smoking, but according to my trusty high
school geometry book, it would have been very difficult
for him to peer over a structure 77 feet high and 200 feet
wide and see something that was, according to legend, some
50 feet off the ground -- unless, of course, Mr. Smith happens
to be about 100 feet tall, or to have x-ray vision. I'm
going to go on record here as saying that neither seems
very likely.
In any event, the point here is that Eric Bart has prepared
a very selective presentation of the available Pentagon
witness testimony. Some of the testimony that Bart has opted
to omit from his list can be found here,
and yet more can be found here.
Although these two lists mercifully omit many of the non-witness
accounts that Bart has used to pad his list, and include
many purported accounts that Bart has left off, both of
the additional lists are plagued by problems of their own.
Probably the biggest problem is that a good number of entries
are credited to what amount to anonymous sources (people
identified by only first name, or by initials, or by pseudonym).
Some listings are, incredibly enough, unverified pseudonymous
postings to internet discussion groups that appeared months,
and even years, after the fact. I would hope that we can
all agree here that anonymous, belated boasts of having
witnessed one of the most significant events in modern American
history do not exactly qualify as actual witness accounts.
By combining the three lists, minus all the filler, I came
up with a list of roughly 110 named individuals who have
claimed, at one time or another, to have witnessed something
flying near, headed towards, and/or crashing into the Pentagon
on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, nearly three
dozen of these individuals held off telling their tales
until long after the official version of events had thoroughly
penetrated the American psyche, leaving roughly 75 people
who claimed, in the hours and days immediately following
the attack, that they had witnessed the event. With this
more complete witness list in hand, it is time to return
to the original question being examined here (as posed by
Xymphora): "If the evidence of the crash of Flight 77 is
so goddamn clear, why did the operators in the Republican
Party feel the need to gild the lily?"
As it turns out, it was actually more of a 'bipartisan'
affair, with operatives of both alleged political persuasions
joining the lily-gilding party. Consider the following list
of self-described witnesses: Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby
Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren.
Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through
the list anyway:
- Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential
candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project
for a New American Century.
- Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally
liberal punching bag on CNN's
"Crossfire."
- Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.
- Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing
staff.
- Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery
Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda
-- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the
literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans,
and numerous other accomplished liars.
- Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst
for Fox News.
I don't know if the Tattoo theorists are aware of this,
but all of the people on that list share at least one thing
in common: they are all professional
liars. It is their job, individually and collectively,
to lie to the American people. On a daily basis. They are,
by any objective appraisal, propagandists for the state.
So if all of them are selling the same story, in the face
of compelling evidence to the contrary, it is probably best
to assume that they might not be telling the truth.
Let's take a look now at some of the other people that are
hawking the same story: Dennis Clem, Penny Elgas, Albert
Hemphill, Lincoln Leibner, Stephen McGraw, Mitch Mitchell,
Patty Murray, Rick Renzi, James Robbins, Meseidy Rodriguez,
Darb Ryan, Elizabeth Smiley, and Clyde Vaughn. And who are
they? Allow me to handle the introductions:
- Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency.
- Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on
Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens
to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President
George H.W. Bush.
- Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization.
- Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications
officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
- Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice
attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest.
- Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant.
- Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington).
- Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona).
- James Robbins is a contributor to National Review,
a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at
the American Foreign Policy Council (I, by the way,
have decided that I should refer to myself as a Senior
Fellow at the Center for an Informed America).
- I'm not sure exactly who Meseidy Rodriguez is, but
his name appears in legal
filings concerning Dick Cheney's top-secret energy
policy meetings, which probably isn't a good sign.
- Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval
Personnel.
- Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist
with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters --
which means that she is one of the people who inexplicably
failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001,
possibly because she was busy watching phantom jetliners
crashing into the Pentagon.
- Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director
of military support to civil authorities -- which means
that he is another one of the people who inexplicably
failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001,
possibly because he was also busy watching phantom jetliners
crashing into the Pentagon.
Anybody see anyone on that list that they would want to
buy a used car from? No? How about Colonel Bruce Elliot
or Major Joseph Candelario? Or Lt. Cols. Stuart Artman or
Frank "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken
off my head" Probst? Still no? Then how about Elaine McCusker,
a Co-Chairman of the Coalition for National Security Research?
Or retired Naval Commanders Donald Bouchoux or Lesley Kelly?
How about Shari Taylor, a finance manager at the Defense
Intelligence Agency, or Philip Sheuerman, the Associate
General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force?
How about any of the names on this list: Bob Dubill, Mary
Ann Owens, Richard Benedetto, Christopher Munsey, Vin Narayanan,
Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, Steve Anderson, Fred Gaskins
and Mark Faram? Aside from claiming to have witnessed the
attack on the Pentagon, what do these ten people have in
common? We'll get to that in just a moment, but first let's
hear from Mr. Faram, who is, it will be recalled, the gentleman
who captured the two famous shots of the alleged aircraft
debris that many investigators have inexplicably spent countless
hours trying to match up with images of various American
Airlines aircraft fuselages:
I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind
the photograph. At the time, I was a senior writer with
Navy Times newspaper. It is an independent
weekly that is owned by the Gannett Corporation (same
owners as USA Today).
I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon
when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera
in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When
the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site
and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion.
I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had
to work around to get a shot of it with the building in
the background. Because the situation was still fluid,
I was able to get in close and make that image within
fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had
yet to shut off the area. I photographed it twice, with
the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building
in the background ... Right after photographing that piece
of wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical
personnel were tending to a seriously burned man. A priest
knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I
took that image and left immediately ... I was out of
the immediate area photographing other things within 20
minutes of the crash.
To say that Mr. Faram's account of his actions that morning
strains credibility would be a gross understatement. Imagine
this scenario: you are a reporter for a major news service,
and you happen to find yourself, purely by chance, among
the first on the scene of the most significant news story
in decades -- one that would occupy all of the media's time
for weeks to come. Would you be at all surprised to find
a triage area already set up and staffed by medical personnel
and a priest? And, more importantly, would you just take
a quick look around, snap off a few quick photos, and then
hurriedly leave the scene, because there was apparently
something else to photograph on the other side of town --
like maybe a really important dog show?
Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did
at least provide us with some useful important information
-- specifically, that USA
Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett
family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't
so modest, he would have noted that Gannett
also publishes Air Force
Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your
typical independent, civilian media organization.
Having established that, let's now take a look at who our
group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the
time of the Pentagon attack):
- Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.
- Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.
- Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.
- Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.
- Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.
- Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.
- Mike Walter was a reporter for USA
Today.
- Steve Anderson was the director of communications
for USA Today.
- Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.
- Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy
Times.
Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here?
Now, it is my understanding that the Tattoo theorists claim,
for the most part, not to be 'coincidence theorists.' So,
I guess that the question that I have is this: exactly how
many Gannett reporters
and editors does it take to make a conspiracy? I could accept
that maybe two or three of them might have been, purely
by chance, in position to witness the attack on the Pentagon.
Hell, being an open-minded kind of guy, I might even be
willing to go as high as four or five. But ten?! Ten?! What are the odds that ten of the alleged
Pentagon witnesses would be from the same news organization?
Perhaps some readers are thinking that maybe there is a
simple explanation for this statistical aberration -- like
maybe the Gannett building is ideally located to provide
a view of the attack, or maybe everyone was riding together
on a Gannett ride-sharing
bus. But neither of those appear to be the case, since only
one of the ten Gannett
journalists claims to have witnessed the attack from his
office, while all the rest maintain that they just happened
to be positioned in various strategic locations near the
Pentagon. So unless USA
Today staff was holding its annual company picnic
on the Pentagon lawn that morning, it seems to me that there
is something seriously wrong with this story.
Amazingly enough, no fewer than five of those ten Gannett reporters and editors (Benedetto,
Munsey, Narayanan, Sucherman and Walter) were able to specifically
identify the plane that they saw as an American Airlines
jet, and a sixth (Faram) managed to capture the only known
photographic images of something vaguely resembling a twisted
piece of wreckage from an American Airlines jet! I have
to note here that it's a damn good thing that we had proactive
and incredibly observant reporters like the USA
Today staff swarming all over the scene of a pending
national tragedy. I guess that when you're a seasoned professional,
you just have a sixth sense about where to be and when to
be there. That's probably why Eugenio Hernandez and Dave
Winslow, two Associated
Press reporters, were also on the scene to witness
the attack. Hernandez, by the way, is a video journalist
-- but not the kind of video journalist who shot any actual
video footage.
According to Dave Winslow, an AP
radio reporter, his being on the scene to witness the attack
and then quickly call in a report ensured that "AP
members were first to know." I guess he didn't notice that
nearly the entire staff of USA Today was loitering around the scene and
calling in reports as well.
According to the 'witness' compilations, it wasn't just
major media outlets that knew immediately what had happened
at the Pentagon. Witness Mark Bright, a Defense Protective
Service officer who was manning a guard booth, claims that,
"As soon as it struck the building, I just called in an
attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental." If true,
then I guess his call must have come in right after that
of fellow witness and Defense Protective Service officer
William Lagasse, who said on ABC's
"Nightline" program: "It was close enough that I could see
the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read
American Airlines on it … I got on the radio and broadcast.
I said a plane is, is heading toward the Heliport side of
the building."
The Christian Science
Monitor reported that Fred Hey, a congressional staff
attorney and yet another purported witness, had the following
reaction to the attack: "'I can't believe it! This plane
is going down into the Pentagon!' he shouted into his cell
phone. On the other end of the line was his boss, Rep. Bob
Ney (R) of Ohio. Representative Ney immediately phoned the
news to House Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Livingood, who ordered
an immediate evacuation of the Capitol itself." And according
to the Seattle Times,
Senator Patty Murray was meeting with other Senate Leaders
when, "From a window in the meeting room, she saw a plane
hit the Pentagon."
The Birmington Post Herald
held that Pentagon firefighter/witness Alan Wallace "switched
on the truck's radio. 'Foam 61 to Fort Myer,' he said. 'We
have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of
the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side.
The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus."
According to another report, local Engine Company 101 also
witnessed the attack and immediately radioed in this report:
"Engine 101--emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into
the Pentagon."
According to yet another report, "Barry Frost and Officer
Richard Cox, on patrol in south Arlington County, saw a
large American Airlines aircraft in steep descent on a collision
course with the Pentagon. They immediately radioed the Arlington
County Emergency Communications Center. ACPD Headquarters
issued a simultaneous page to all members of the ACFD with
instructions to report for duty." In addition, a purported
transcription of an Arlington County Police Department log
tape reads as follows: "Motor 14, it was an American Airlines
plane. Uh. Headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike
highway), possibly toward the Pentagon."
So what we can safely conclude, after reviewing these various
accounts, is that - within
mere moments of the attack/explosion - all of the
following entities knew exactly what had happened at the
Pentagon on the morning of September 11: the Pentagon's
own police force; the Pentagon's own fire department; the
Arlington County Police Department; the Arlington County
Fire Department; the Arlington County Emergency Communications
Center; the leadership of the United States House of Representatives;
the leadership of the United States Senate; the country's
national newspaper; and the nation's largest newswire service.
In addition, there were, according to the Tattoo theorists,
literally hundreds of witnesses on the scene who knew exactly
what had happened. And according to John Judge (perhaps
the least credible of the Tattoo theorists, with the possible
exception of Jean-Pierre Desmoulins), "local news immediately
interviewed and broadcast eyewitness accounts of the plane
going in."
(http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html)
In other words, there was never any doubt about what hit
the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. From
the very moment of impact, it was perfectly clear to everyone
exactly what had happened. We know this because the accounts
contained on the 'witness' lists of various Tattoo theorists
tell us that it is so. And we should, I suppose, believe
these accounts even though the objective reality is that
- despite the alleged presence of hundreds of eyewitnesses,
including numerous local and national media figures, prominent
politicians, police and fire personnel, and military and
intelligence personnel, and despite the fact that it was
widely known that hijacked commercial aircraft were being
used as weapons that day, and that a hijacked plane had
allegedly been heading toward Washington - no one initially seemed to know what had happened
at the Pentagon. According
to Assistant Secretary of Defense Torie Clarke, it was
none other then Donald Rumsfeld who first determined that
the Pentagon had been struck by an airplane -- half an hour
after the attack had occurred: "[Rumsfeld] was in his office,
really not that far away from the side of the building that
got hit by the plane. He and another person immediately
ran down the hallway and went outside and helped some of
the people, some of the casualties getting off the stretchers,
etc. When he came back in the building about half an hour
later, he was the first one that told us he was quite sure
it was a plane. Based on the wreckage and based on the thousands
and thousands of pieces of metal. He was the one that told
us, the staff that was in the room. So he was really the
first one who told us that it was most likely a plane."
It wasn't until later that it was declared that the alleged
aircraft was an American Airlines passenger plane. As David
Ray Griffin recounted in The
New Pearl Harbor, "At 10:32, ABC
News reported that Flight 77 had been hijacked, but
there was no suggestion that it had returned to Washington
and hit the Pentagon. Indeed, Fox TV shortly thereafter said that the Pentagon
had been hit by a US Air Force flight."
(You can read the relevant chapter from Griffin's book here,
along with some amusing criticism from Jean-Pierre Desmoulins:
http://www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html)
So it appears that, nearly a full hour after the attack
had occurred, no one had yet begun to flesh out the official
story of what happened at the Pentagon. "Only sometime in
the afternoon did it become generally accepted that the
aircraft that hit the Pentagon was Flight 77," writes Griffin.
"The first move toward the identification was made by a
statement on the website of the Pentagon announcing that
it had been hit by a 'commercial airliner, possibly hijacked.'"
That statement, we can safely assume, was likely based on
the assessment of Donald Rumsfeld. Griffin continues: "Then
that afternoon the story that this airliner was Flight 77
spread quickly through the media. The source of this story,
the Los Angeles Times reported, was some military
officials speaking on condition of anonymity. The media
also started reporting that Flight 77, just before it disappeared
from view, had made a U-turn and headed back toward Washington.
But, argues Meyssan, since the civilian air controllers
were, according to the official account, no longer receiving
information from either radar or the transponder, this 'information
must also have come from military sources.'"
(http://www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-griffin.html)
There was, of course, one other person who played a key
role in fleshing out the official story: Theodore Olson,
U.S. Solicitor General and right-wing conspirator extraordinaire.
It was Olson, it will be recalled, who single-handedly verified
the 'hijacked by Arabs and flown back to Washington' story
through his inconsistent accounts of unverified cellphone
calls that he supposedly received from his wife, yet another
right-wing propagandist and talking-head.
The truth of the matter is that the "American Airlines 757
Crashes Into The Pentagon!" story did not spontaneously
arise from the eyewitness accounts of rank-and-file citizens.
To the contrary, it was a product of the work of Donald
Rumsfeld, Ted Olson and unnamed Pentagon officials, and
it was reinforced by the media largely through the words
of the political operatives and media whores we have already
gotten acquainted with -- and people like reputed Navy pilot
Tim Timmerman, who spoke on the air with CNN
correspondent Bob Franken on the afternoon of September
11 (some four-and-a-half hours after the incident at the
Pentagon). Timmerman was seemingly on a mission to unequivocally
establish what it was that had allegedly struck the Pentagon:
Bob Franken: What
can you tell us about the plane itself?
Tim Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines,
no question.
Franken: You say it was a Boeing, and you say it was a
757 or 767?
Timmerman: 7-5-7.
Franken: 757, which, of course …
Timmerman: American Airlines.
Franken: American Airlines ...
And who exactly was this witness who was so cocksure of
his identification of the plane? No one seems to know. One
researcher (Jerry Russell) failed in his efforts to verify
that he is an actual person. Maybe he is the Tim Timmerman
mentioned in this story out of Michigan (http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2002.02.15/cmm2.html
and http://www.detnews.com/2001/metro/0103/05/c08-195512.htm),
which seems to carry the distinct stench of black operations.
Or maybe he doesn't even exist at all.
In any event, the American Airlines 757 story was further
embellished through the notorious photographs of Mark Faram
of the infamous Gannett Ten, and through the fragment of indeterminate
metal lovingly and patriotically preserved and donated
to the National Museum of American History by a woman who
just happens - coincidentally, of course - to sit on a board
with George Bush, Sr.'s Chief of Staff, and through various
other images of supposed aircraft debris, virtually all
of which are credited to "anonymous" or "unknown" photographers.
(http://pentagonresearch.com/photographers.html)
* * * * * * * *
* *
In the beginning, nobody talked much about the Pentagon
attack. Most of the internet chatter was about advance warnings
and put options. A few brave souls questioned the collapse
of the Twin Towers, the appearance of an air defense stand-down,
and the fate of Flight 93, but no one really talked about
what happened at the Pentagon.
We never saw any footage that verified the official story,
nor did we initially see or hear anything that contradicted
that story. And so it was until Thierry Meyssan, working
from thousands of miles away, alerted the world to the fact
that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon
was at serious odds with the available photographic evidence.
In retrospect, it seems odd that we had to look to France
for answers to what happened in this nation's capitol. After
all, don't we have any real investigative journalists of
our own? Don't we have our own 'conspiracy researchers'?
And aren't many of them based right there in Washington,
DC? Weren't some of them in an ideal position to blow the
whistle on the various Pentagon anomalies?
John Judge is one name that immediately comes to mind here.
Judge is, as most readers are probably aware, a veteran
researcher who is revered in many 'conspiracy' circles.
He is not only a current resident of the nation's capitol,
but a native son as well. In fact, he literally grew up
in the Pentagon, as he is fond of telling people. If any
alternative journalist knows his way around the Pentagon,
it is John Judge.
Perhaps more so than anyone else, John Judge was in a position
to serve as a whistleblower. But John Judge was also ideally
positioned to fill another role: upholder of the official
story within the so-called 'truth movement,' and denouncer
of anyone who dared to question the veracity of that official
story. Ever since questions first began to arise about what
really happened at the Pentagon, John Judge has filled the
latter role.
Judge is smart enough to realize that he can't possibly
come out on the winning end of any arguments over the merits
of the available evidence, so he has, for some three years
now, studiously avoided debating the actual evidence. Instead,
he quickly created an apparently fictional entity, in the
form of an unidentified, but supposedly dear friend of his
who just happens to be a flight attendant for American Airlines,
and just happens to regularly fly the route flown by Flight
77 that fateful day, but just happened to have taken that
particular day off so that she survived and now has insider
information, unavailable to anyone else, that Flight 77
really did crash into the Pentagon that day.
This mythical person has served Judge well for the past
three years, enabling him to sidestep any and all substantive
questions concerning the evidence anomalies with a pat answer
that goes something like this: "Well, you know, there were
hundreds of witnesses, and my friend says that it really did happen
the way the government says, so it must be true."
Judge's phantom friend, it should be noted, is not your
average flight attendant. In a post
dated February 21, 2004, Judge told the latest fanciful,
and unintentionally hilarious, version of his friend's story,
which has grown more and more elaborate, and more and more
ridiculous, over the past three years:
A dear friend and fellow researcher had been working as
a flight attendant for American for many years, and that
was her regular route, several times a week ... As it
turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having
taken the day off work to care for her sick father ...
When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her
to raise the issues that concerned me and the speculation
of others who denied the plane hit the Pentagon. She was
adamant in saying it had, and told me she had been to
the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked
her about the speculation that the plane would have made
a larger hole due to the wingspan. She informed me that
the fuel was stored in the wings and that they would have
exploded and broken off, as the fuselage slammed through
the building walls.
Already we see that not only is this person a flight attendant,
but also a fellow researcher and, apparently, an expert
on airplane crashes. As we return to the story, Judge's
mystery friend has been "approached by another flight attendant
to assist in support work for the rescue crews at the site."
Let's see what happens next:
The Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances
that they could trust to be near the site and all the
airline attendants qualified for that level of clearance
... [My friend] and her mother signed up for an overnight
shift on Friday, September 21st. She and her mother spent
the entire night continuously providing drinks to rescuers
... At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September
22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to
visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others
took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area.
I have to interrupt here briefly to ask a couple of silly
questions that come to mind. First, how is it that someone
who is supposedly a conspiracy researcher, and a dear friend
of a very well known conspiracy researcher, obtains a security
clearance that allows them to roam about the Pentagon? And
second, if the mystery friend had just spent the entire
night tending to the rescue teams working at the Pentagon
crash site, why did she then have to be driven to the crash
site? Where did that Salvation Army van take her -- across
the Pentagon lawn?
Memo to John Judge: lying isn't as easy as it may appear
to be. If you're going to completely fabricate a story,
you have to be careful that that story is consistent. And
with that out of the way, let's get back to the story, which
is about to veer off into bizarro world:
The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks,
small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to
find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were
being used to transport workers and others at the site.
One flight attendant was driving one of these around the
site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly
discern where the original wall had been. There was just
a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the
crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once
they were inside. But my friend went in further than the
others and kept her emotions in check as she has been
trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.
How do I even begin to dissect out all the absurdities present
in this one brief passage? I suppose I could begin by pointing
out that the mystery friend couldn't possibly have seen
a "gaping hole" since any entry hole was buried in rubble
shortly after the alleged crash, when the Pentagon was afflicted
with that curious September 11 malady known as Collapsing
Building Syndrome. I also have to point out how extremely
unlikely it is that a group of flight attendants would be
invited to freely tour a site that was: (1) one of the world's
most secure military installations; (2) ground zero of an
investigation into what was supposedly the deadliest act
of 'terrorism' ever on American soil; and (3) a badly damaged,
unsafe, partially-collapsed structure that obviously would
have been off-limits to anyone who didn't need to be in
there.
I was also going to comment on the scenario of the unnamed
flight attendant cruising around the site in a jeep-and-wagon
set-up, but, to be perfectly honest, every time the visual
flashes through my mind I find myself too convulsed with
laughter to think of anything to say.
At this point, you are probably wondering what the phantom
stewardess/researcher/crash expert/rescue worker saw when
she entered the building. Quite a bit, as it turns out.
Certainly far more evidence of a plane crash than anyone
else has ever claimed to have seen. And much of what she
saw, believe it or not, was wreckage that could be positively
identified as wreckage of an American Airlines Boeing 757,
which she was, of course, an expert at identifying
She saw parts of
the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757
plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several
ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell
... and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate
the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane
... The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls
had a cloud design and color she recognized ... The blue
coloring of the drapes and carpet were also specific to
the 757 or 767 larger planes ... Seating upholstery also
matched the AA 757 planes ... She saw other parts of the
plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar
to her ... One area of fuselage had remaining window sections
and the shape of the windows ... was also distinct to
the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A
logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller
A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes
and she saw parts of those.
Who knew there was so much identifiable aircraft wreckage?
Wreckage that was apparently never photographed and never
shown to anyone other than John Judge's friend? Am I the
only one here who is wondering whether Mr. Judge has maybe
been watching too many reruns of old Saturday Night Live skits featuring Jon Lovitz.
"Yeah, John, that's it ... that's the ticket."
The anonymous friend "also saw," we are to believe, "charred
human bones but not any flesh or full body parts." So the
bodies were apparently reduced to charred bones, but the
upholstery, carpet and drapes were, of course, still looking
factory fresh.
In an earlier
version of the flight attendant story, posted on October
30, 2002, Judge claimed that his friend was also "shown
autopsy photos of her fellow crew members, including the
severed arm of her best friend at work, which she recognized
from the bracelet she wore." I have to confess here that
I never realized how much access flight attendants have.
I now find myself wondering what kind of access commercial
pilots must have. I'm guessing they could probably sit in
on the President's morning briefings if they really wanted
to.
Anyhow, getting back to the story, we aren't quite through
yet being subjected to outlandish claims. The next one goes
something like this: The
crew of Flight 77 who died in the crash included her personal
friend Renee May. She had spoken to Renee's mother after
the crash, and Renee had used a cell phone to call her
mother during the hijacking.
It sounds like the phantom stewardess has this case all
wrapped up. She has, single-handedly, gathered more evidence
that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon than the entire
federal government and all of its media mouthpieces combined.
I, for one, am impressed. She has seen and positively identified
wreckage of Flight 77. She has seen and positively identified
the remains of actual humans who were supposed to be on
the flight. She has seen the gaping entry wound. She has
spoken to someone who can personally vouch for the hijacking
story.
And that's not all! Judge has other phantom witnesses as
well, and they can verify other portions of the official
fairy tale: Other
American ground crew workers saw some of the suspects
board American Airlines Flight 77 and recognized them
from published photos ... My attendant friend knows and
has put me in touch with other American Airlines employees
and pilots who were at the site and took photographs.
We are busy locating these, as well as another attendant
who was at the site with her that day.
Well, you keep working on that, John. Let us know just as
soon as you can produce a single one of these alleged witnesses,
or any of their alleged photographs. But, really, there's
no rush. We understand that these things take time, and
you've only had three-and-a-half years to locate these witnesses
that you claim to have already been in touch with.
By the way, what were they all doing stomping around the
Pentagon crash site? Was it open to all American Airlines
employees? How about United Airlines employees? Were Boeing
employees allowed to tour the site as well? How about employees
of Dulles International Airport? How about employees of
the company that catered the meals for Flight 77? Did the
baggage handlers get to take a peek? I don't mean to sound
snide here; I'm really just trying to determine what the
criteria were for deciding who was allowed to tour this
very sensitive site, because, truth be told, I would have
liked to take a look for myself, but my invite must have
gotten lost in the mail or something.
Moving on, it's time for Mr. Judge to abruptly segue into
the conclusion of his formidable case: My
friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable
eyewitness to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77
crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She has
been vilified by those who refuse to believe the obvious
... My friend is herself a researcher for many years into
government misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see
the parts, she would say so. She has no reason to lie
about it. Nor is she confused about what she saw. She
is a professional and is used to looking at evidence.
Let it never be said that I participated in the vilification
of a nonexistent person. That just wouldn't be right. For
the record, the argument here is not that Judge's friend
is a liar. No, the argument here is that John Judge is a
liar. And not a particularly good one -- but certainly a
very ambitious one. Lest there be any lingering doubt about
that, Judge saves his best for last. In the final paragraph
of his missive, he actually makes the following claim:
One employee saw
the nose of the plane crash through her office wall.
No shit? I hope she didn't receive any serious injuries.
In that same paragraph, Judge claims that Flight 77 "flew
dangerously close to the ground, skidding
into the ground floor of the Pentagon." In yet another Pentagon rant,
this one from October 23, 2002, Judge made a similar claim:
"the plane bottomed out just short of contact with the building
and bounced into it." That scenario, of course, was long
ago discredited, owing to the fact that it is quite apparent
that there was no damage to the Pentagon lawn consistent
with an airplane crash. And yet, more than three years after
the events of September 11, Judge is still hawking the same
story.
The bottom line here is that Judge has quite obviously fabricated
an elaborate tale - allegedly, but not actually, based on
the testimony of unnamed witnesses - and he has used that
story to shield himself from having to deal with the very
real evidence anomalies uncovered by legitimate researchers.
For three years, he has asked that we take him at his word,
because he is, after all, the great John Judge. And that,
my friends, is what legend building is all about.
After reviewing Judge's various Pentagon rants, I have a
few final questions for the Tattoo theorists: why did the
'powers that be' feel the need to call on the services of
an established 'conspiracy theorist' to further gild this
lily? Why is John Judge so obviously lying? Or, if he is
isn't lying, then why do all you Tattoo theorists shy away
from referencing his 'work'? After all, he has obviously
presented more evidence in support of your Tattoo theories
than anyone else. Isn't the fact that you choose to ignore
his contributions a tacit admission that you know full well
that he is lying his ass off?
So, again I must ask: if the evidence of the crash of Flight
77 is so persuasive, then why is John Judge gilding the
lily? |
I'm fascinated with
the stock market, not just as a money-making (or money-losing)
proposition, but as a laboratory for sentiment and a theater
of folly. One of the things I've learned about the market
is to heed one's elders. They know best. When every hotshot
was predicting a Nasdaq to infinity and beyond in the
late nineties, it was the wise owls--Richard Russell of
Dow Theory Letters, Warren Buffett, Sir John Templeton,
Seth Glickenhaus--who warned of stocks burning up on reentry
into the earth's atmosphere. They were discounted at the
time as stodgy, outmoded, stuck in the transistor age
as information technology made traditional metrics and
industries obsolete--Buffett in particular was chided
for not holding tech stocks--and the business magazines
splashed one young startup stud or portfolio manager after
another on the cover along with articles that cried RETIRE
RICH! and FIRE YOUR BOSS!
Then, in March 2000, Nasdaq crested above five thousand
and snowballed downhill, currently resting at 3000 points--3000
points!--below its all-time high. I have friends, we all
do, who got caught up in the euphoria and had retirement
money and college-fund money in zoom-zoom Janus funds
or others heavy in semis and dotcoms and lost anywhere
from 50 to 70% of their holdings and still haven't recovered.
The market isn't dizzily high now, you're not hearing
the same hyperbole, but the elders are again full of qualms
and forebodings. A year ago in an interview,
Sir John Templeton said he had never seen so few investment
opportunities in all his 91 years. Buffett has also said
he's sitting on a mountain of cash because there's so
little worth buying. Today, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker,
a man of true stature (literally as well), wrote
in the Washington Post today, "[U]nder the placid surface,
there are disturbing trends: huge imbalances, disequilibria,
risks -- call them what you will. Altogether the circumstances
seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember,
and I can remember quite a lot. What really concerns me
is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity
to do much about it."
Also looking under the placid surface is the excellent
young coolheaded portfolio manager, John Hussman, who
does a weekly commentary
on his site and has been marking the underlying deterioration
of the stock market, which turned ominous last week.
"Apart from the broad deteriorations that have already
occurred, the last straw for market action was that
a number of key concerns for the market – interest rates,
oil prices, the U.S. dollar – all improved, but broad
market action failed to respond. Financials, bank stocks,
corporate bonds and other interest-sensitives failed
to improve in response to the rally in Treasuries, transportation
stocks fell apart despite the pullback in oil prices,
neither market breadth, leadership or other internals
have exhibited strength, and so on.
"Moreover, at this point, interest rates, oil and the
dollar have all corrected their prior, extreme moves,
which exhausts the benefits that their recovery from
oversold (overbought) conditions were expected to provide.
Given that these measures have been among the most important
concerns for investors in recent months, the failure
of stocks to respond to their improvement implies that
there is more negative information than meets the eye.
A clearer, but slightly improper way of saying this
is 'if stocks can't rally on lower rates, lower oil
and a stronger dollar, what happens if they deteriorate
again?'"
Yet as Richard Russell noted today in his daily commentary
(subcription only) at Dow
Theory Letters, the volatility index is still recording
investor complacency.
There's a pattern here. As with Peak Oil, global warming,
the real estate bubble, and the various US deficits, there's
a general awareness of Trouble Coming and yet no sense
of urgency or battle plan. It isn't that the media, the
political class, and the media are paralyzed by fear or
overwhelmed by alternative solutions, it's as if everyone
is assuming that we can sleepwalk through the next crisis
and muddle through as we always have with only minor hiccups,
if any, in our lifestyles. As Stephen
Roach and others have warned, the American consumer
is now so indebted and lacking in savings that there's
little cushion for the next reversal of fortune. Almost
any soft landing could turn hard.
As James Kunstler, author of the forthcoming The Long
Emergency, wrote today on his Clusterfuck
Nation chronicle:
"I notice lately that there are two kinds of hubris
operating among the 'forward-thinking' classes in America
(which is to say, those who are thinking at all). One
I call techno-hubris. It represents the idea that there
are really no limits to our powers of innovation and
it is obviously the product of our experience in the
past century, especially of our victory in World War
Two and of the 1969 moon landing. The other kind is
organizational hubris, the certainty that we can organize
our way around the oil bottleneck, global warming, and
population overshoot. What both modes of thinking have
in common is that neither recognizes the probability
that we are moving into a period of discontinuity, turbulence
and hardship. Both modes of thinking assume that we
can negotiate a smooth transition from where we are
now to a new-and-improved human condition.
"There is a remarkable
consistency in the delusional thinking at every level
of American life these days. When Americans think about
the future at all, they seem to think it will be pretty
much the way we live now. The buyers of 4000 square
foot McHouses think that they will be able to continue
heating them with cheap natural gas, not to mention
commuting seventy miles a day. The stadium builders
assume that major league sports will continue just as
it is today, with chartered jet planes conveying zillionaire
athletes incessently back and forth across the continent.
The highway engineers and the municipal planners are
focused like lasers on providing more roads and more
parking spaces for evermore cars. The architects are
designing more skyscrapers, despite the decrepit condition
of the electric grid and the frightful situation with
our depleting natural gas supply. We're so confident,
so sure of ourselves.
"When you combine the
seven deadly sins with high technology, you get some
really serious problems. You get turbo-sins. It's dreadful
to imagine what goeth after turbo-pride."
But we may end up living what is too dreadful to imagine.
|
WASHINGTON - Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon was to head back to Israel after a disappointing
summit with US President George W. Bush which exposed
some of the close allies' divisions over the Mideast
peace process.
On Sunday, Sharon set out on his 10th visit to the
United States, confident that the top-level summit would
see Bush publicly applauding the forthcoming Israeli
withdrawal from Gaza while glossing over a dispute about
expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The invitation to visit Bush's Texas
ranch for the first time was meant to emphasize the
uniquely close and intimate relationship between the
two men, which has been cemented by the Israeli leader's
willingness to pull all troops and Jewish settlers out
of the Gaza Strip later this summer.
But the summit fell significantly short
of Israeli expectations.
While Bush reaffirmed his support for the Gaza withdrawal,
praising Sharon's "strong visionary leadership",
the overriding image of the summit
was the US leader issuing an unusually stern warning
that Israel must respect the terms of the Mideast peace
roadmap and not follow through on controversial plans
to expand settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.
However, Bush's comments about settlement expansion
-- mentioned three times at a joint press conference
-- were brushed off by the Israeli delegation, who were
at pains to emphasize the successful nature of the trip
which saw Sharon paying his first-ever visit to the
US leader's private ranch in Texas.
Putting a positive spin on the talks, Israeli officials,
including Sharon himself, brusquely dismissed talk of
a crisis or even a disagreement over Israel's long-standing
settlement policy.
But it was hard to avoid the
impression that the trip was overshadowed by the very
public presidential rebuke.
"Bush last year signalled to Israel that major
settlements could stay but warned against expanding
them. On Monday, Bush did the right thing by strongly
reiterating the policy in a meeting with Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon. It was a message Sharon did not
want to hear," pointed out an editorial in the
Los Angeles Times. [...]
One area which may yet bear fruit
for Israel is the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
At the summit, Sharon reportedly showed Bush satellite
photos of Iranian nuclear sites and warned that Tehran
was approaching a "point of no return" in
learning how to make an atomic bomb, the New York Times
reported Wednesday.
Urging Washington to keep up the pressure
on Iran, Sharon pressed for the issue to be put before
the UN Security Council -- a move which could yet see
sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic. |
NEW YORK - The United States will
decide this summer whether to pursue a tougher stance
on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations Security
Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The
Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Thursday.
Rice said Washington has faith in European-led negotiations
aimed at ensuring that Iran's nuclear program remains
non-military, and that what matters most is "a
unity of purpose" among all the nations involved.
Her remarks come shortly after Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon urged President Bush to take a tougher
line on Iran and said the country was approaching a
point of no return in its quest for nuclear weapons.
Rice, however, told the newspaper
the Israelis had provided "no new revelation"
on Iran's alleged nuclear program. [...] |
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen
Clark suffered a badly bruised arm when a door on the
small plane she was travelling in swung open in mid-air
forcing the aircraft to make an emergency landing.
Clark had been reading when the incident occurred and
suffered a badly bruised arm after being lifted upwards
from her seat as the twin-engined Piper Aztec lost altitude
rapidly. Her seat belt saved her from more serious injury.
The prime minister said she wondered whether she would
"live or die" when the door dislodged and
opened during turbulence on a flight from Rotorua in
the central North Island to Wellington.
"With my head in papers all of a sudden there
seems to be a lot of noise and the plane plunging --
even with your belt on you go up and my arm crashed
down on a piece of metal on a window sill," Clark
told reporters.
"I was mostly concerned about the bad knock I
got on my arm... then I noticed my briefcase had been
flipped upside down and my papers had flown through
the cabin."
Clark told National Radio she was sitting in the rear
of the plane reading her papers when they struck turbulence
without warning.
The sudden movement of the plane dislodged
the door and as it began to open, two police officers
travelling with the prime minister grabbed hold of it.
They could not shut the door, so they held on to it
through the emergency landing.
"When the plane plunges like that, it's obviously
quite shocking," Clark said.
"When you see the door can't close you know that
it is a serious incident."
The pilot sent out a distress call and diverted to
the nearest airport, which was at Paraparaumu just north
of the capital.
Aviation authorities have been alerted and an investigation
was under way.
"At this stage we're not quite
sure what happened," Rescue Co-ordination Centre
spokeswoman Heidi Brook said.
Clark would not comment on whether the door on the
six-seater plane had been closed properly before take-off,
saying that the investigation would look at that question. |
BEIJING, April 13 (Xinhuanet)
-- Japan has come up with a serious provocation to China's
rights by granting Japanese firms the right to drill for
gas and oil in East China Sea, said Chinese Foreign Ministry
Spokesman Qin Gang on Wednesday.
In response to a question from local press, Qin said
China has already lodged protest on this issue to the
Japanese side and will retain the right to make further
reaction.
The Japanese government Wednesday initiated procedures
to grant Japanese firms the right to conduct test drilling
for potential gas and oil fields to the east of the so
called "demarcation line" in the East China
Sea.
Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has
asked relevant authorities to review applications from
companies which want to explore the fields, the Kyodo
news agency reported Wednesday.
Qin said the move by the Japanese side is a serious
provocation to the rights of China and the norm of international
relations.
Qin said there are disputes between China and Japan
on the demarcation of the continental shelf of East China
Sea. He said China has always insisted that the two sides
should resolve the issue through diplomatic negotiation.
However, the Japanese side has turned a deaf ear to
the righteous proposition of China and attempted to impose
its unilaterally-conceived "demarcation line"
on the Chinese side.
"China has never ever recognized and will never
recognize this (the "demarcation line"),"
Qin said. |
SHENZHEN - Here in
Shenzhen from Hong Kong last Sunday with a couple of friends
for some weekend shopping, I had the misfortune of bumping
into a several-thousand strong anti-Japanese demonstration
at a shopping center - a day trip wasted. Demonstrations
had also been held the previous Sunday in this special-economic-zone
city across the mainland border with Hong Kong.
At that time, some Japanese (and for good measure, other)
department store display windows were smashed, some items
looted. This has been going on for the better part of
the past two weeks, not just in Shenzhen, but in Beijing,
Changsha, Chengdu and other places. Guangzhou seems to
have joined in this past Sunday. Shanghai to date has
been largely unaffected.
The never-ending controversy over Japanese textbooks
once again allegedly touched off the anti-Japanese protests;
other issues apparently include Japan's effort to gain
a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council,
the true ownership of the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands, and
claims to oil-and-gas rich undersea territory in the East
China Sea.
What struck me was the well-organized nature of the demonstration.
A guy in a dark brown suit (no tie, though) diligently
burned a Japanese flag; once aflame, it was quickly doused
by another protester prudently equipped with a fire extinguisher.
Then there was the designated hitter/screamer - a fellow
wielding a broom stick (which, unbeknownst to me, may
have some marshal arts significance) who - carried aloft
by two stout men - delivered vicious blows with both ends
of the stick to the head and body of a puppet of Japanese
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi carried by a guy wearing
a protective motor cycle helmet. And then there were the
"riot police", accompanying the protest march
more like parade marshals at New York's St Patrick's Day
parade up Fifth Avenue.
We thought we'd ask some of the protesters - more like
revelers, actually - what this was all about. "Whitewash,"
said one of them (in English) and repeated the word several
times over, presumably referring to the alleged whitewash
of Japanese war crimes against China in present-day textbooks.
"They [the Japanese] are too arrogant; we can't take
it any longer," said another. How did they know about
the "whitewash"? They were told about it in
their work unit. Where did the Japanese flags come from
that were ceremoniously burnt? A guy handed them out when
they boarded the bus that took them to the demonstration.
I can't vouch for it that the Beijing demonstrations
were as contrived and carefully staged. But people picking
up rocks on cue as TV cameras focused on them and making
quite a show of hurling them at the windows of the Japanese
Embassy while "riot police" looked the other
way strongly suggest it - and suggest the same organizers
of the spontaneous anti-Japanese outpouring.
Sunday noon, Asia Times Online's Chinese-language sister
publication (along with most or all Chinese media outlets)
received an instruction from the Communist Party's central
publicity department (via provincial propaganda units)
to black out completely any and all reports of the protest
rallies. Publications staff were, however, permitted to
join the demonstrations if they saw fit.
The obvious question is, why was all this cooked up,
for what purpose, and why now? There are no convincing
answers, and it's in the nature of such contrivances that
the originators won't talk. One thing, though, is quite
certain: the Chinese claim (at vice foreign minister's
level) that Japan is to blame for the unrest is absurd.
Sure, Koizumi has insisted on visiting Yasukuni Shrine
(war memorial were the remains of several convicted and
executed Japanese war criminals are interred) every year.
Sure, the textbooks are an issue. And, yes, the Japanese
are not the most repentant of souls when it comes to their
actions in World War II.
But after seeing what I saw in Shenzhen, I know that
the Chinese government and/or Communist Party got this
thing going and kept it going. Students might do this
sort of thing on their own. They certainly did at Tiananmen
in 1989. From the looks of it (the TV pictures), students
were involved in the Beijing demonstrations. But in Shenzhen
there are no students. It's a special economic zone chock
full of contract workers from all over China, working
in factories or - per chance - in brothels. And don't
tell me this is an arrogant "elitist" view and
that factory workers are as capable of being indignant
about the historical wrongs done to the nation as university
students!
The questions remain: why and why now?
To be systematic about it, there seem to be three possibilities:
1) the government wants to divert attention from pressing
domestic problems; 2) Communist Party factional issues
are fought out in a strange arena; 3) Beijing wants leverage
to stoke up nationalist fervor for international gain.
Neither 1) nor 2) can be entirely ruled out.
While the anti-Japan protests were going on in Beijing
and other cities, villagers in Zhejiang province did battle
with police (and won!), protesting operation of a chemical
plant on land appropriated from them by local authorities.
Similar such protests over land, taxes and so on have
been erupting regularly over the past several years. Still,
they do not appear to pose a serious or immediate threat
to governmental authority. It has also been noted that
Shanghai did not participate in the protests. But it would
seem quite a stretch to construe an ongoing factional
quarrel between former party chief and state president
Jiang Zemin and his successor Hu Jintao out of that.
That leaves international leverage - and that certainly
appeared to be the message when Premier Wen Jiabao told
Tokyo on Tuesday that it must squarely face up to history.
"The strong reactions from the Asian [sic] people
should evoke deep reflections by the Japanese government,"
Wen said, adding, "Only by doing so [facing up to
history] can it exert greater responsibility in the international
community."
Japan is lobbying to become a permanent member of the
United Nations Security Council. Wen is telling Japan,
shape up if you want "Asia's" support. Note,
he didn't say China's. Beijing is challenging Japan for
economic leadership in Asia. And Beijing wants to be the
acknowledged leading and unchallenged regional power.
That appears to be the message. As for the vehicle for
conveying it, the issue of distortion of history doesn't
seem the best choice. The distortions that litter Chinese
history from 1949 till now are too many to count. |
Is the universe stuck
in a Groundhog Day? Is the universe stuck in a Groundhog
Day?
Difficult to tell if the Groundhog Day lasts for billions
of years, but a leading Princeton physicist will today
put forward the theory of a cyclical universe stuck in
a never-ending loop.
Speaking at the Institute of Physics conference Physics
2005 at Warwick University, Professor Paul Steinhardt
will present new work which could reinvigorate research
into future universes.
Drawing on recent findings that the universe's expansion
is speeding up, and that the majority of energy in the
universe must therefore be gravitationally repulsive "dark
energy", Prof Steinhardt, who is the Albert Einstein
professor in science at Princeton University, will explain
how this could mean that the universe is destined to repeat
its own history.
Physicists propose several options for the future of
the universe, but most dramatic is the possibility that
the current acceleration is the prelude to a period of
contraction. The "big crunch" which followed
would create new matter and radiation, triggering another
big bang, and a rejuvenated universe would emerge from
the fireball like a phoenix from the flames.
Prof Steinhardt argues that what happens in the future
could also have happened in our past. The big bang may
not have been the beginning of space and time, but a bridge
to a pre-existing era of contraction. Instead, the evolution
of the universe could be cyclic, with regularly repeating
periods of expansion and contraction.
If this theory is correct, it could help to explain one
of the puzzles of cosmology - how the galaxies, stars
and planets came into being. The big bang should leave
a boring, featureless universe, but not if it was preceded
by a big crunch. The random quantum fluctuations in the
collapsing universe might be the very ripples which seed
the galaxies in the subsequent expansion.
The cyclic picture can be tested using experiments which
are already underway. Physicists are looking for propagating
ripples in space known as gravitational waves. Prof Steinhardt
says that the spectrum of the waves detected should reveal
whether or not the universe existed before the big bang. |
What
a way to go
Super-volcano, robotic rebellion or terrorism? Kate Ravilious
asks 10 scientists to name the biggest danger to Earth and
assesses the chances of it happening |
Thursday April 14, 2005
The Guardian |
How will it all end? Some
say we are likely to go with a bang, others predict a slow
lingering end, while the optimists suggest we will overcome
our difficulties by evolving into a different species.
According to Sir Martin Rees, author
of Our Final Century, astronomer royal and professor of
cosmology and astrophysics at the University of Cambridge,
humans only have a 50-50 chance of making it through the
21st century without serious setback. "Some natural
threats, such as earthquakes and meteorite impacts, remain
the same throughout time, while others are aggravated
by our modern-interconnected world. But now we also need
to consider threats that are human induced."
So what are the greatest threats to humans and can we
do anything about them? Below, 10 scientists talk about
their greatest fears and explain how society could be
affected. Afterwards we estimate each threat in two ways:
first, the chance of it occurring in our lifetime (the
next 70 years); and, second, the danger that it would
pose to the human race if it did happen (10 = making humans
extinct, to one = barely having an impact on our lives).
1: Climate Change
Nick Brooks is a senior research associate at
the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the
University of East Anglia:
"By the end of this century it is likely that greenhouse
gases will have doubled and the average global temperature
will have risen by at least 2C. This is hotter than anything
the Earth has experienced in the last one and a half million
years. In the worst case scenario it could completely
alter the climate in many regions of the world. This could
lead to global food insecurity and the widespread collapse
of existing social systems, causing mass migration and
conflict over resources as some parts of the world become
much less habitable. I don't think that climate change
will sound the death knell for humans, but it certainly
has the potential to devastate."
Chance of temperatures rising more than 2C (the level
considered to be dangerous by the European Union) in the
next 70 years: High
Danger score: 6
2: Telomere erosion
Reinhard Stindl, a medical doctor at the University
of Vienna, says every species contains an "evolutionary
clock", ticking through the generations and counting down
towards an inevitable extinction date:
"On the end of every animal's chromosomes are protective
caps called telomeres. Without them our chromosomes would
become unstable. Each time a cell divides it never quite
copies its telomere completely and throughout our lifetime
the telomeres become shorter and shorter as the cells
multiply. Eventually, when they become critically short,
we start to see age-related diseases, such as cancer,
Alzheimer's, heart attacks and strokes.
"However, it is not just through our lifetime that telomeres
get shorter. My theory is that there is a tiny loss of
telomere length from one generation to the next, mirroring
the process of ageing in individuals. Over thousands of
generations the telomere gets eroded down to its critical
level. Once at the critical level we would expect to see
outbreaks of age-related diseases occurring earlier in
life and finally a population crash. Telomere erosion
could explain the disappearance of a seemingly successful
species, such as Neanderthal man, with no need for external
factors such as climate change."
Chances of a human population crash due to telomere erosion
during the next 70 years: Low
Danger score: 8
3: Viral Pandemic
Professor Maria Zambon is a virologist and head
of the Health Protection Agency's Influenza Laboratory:
"Within the last century we have had four major flu epidemics,
along with HIV and Sars. Major pandemics sweep the world
every century, and it is inevitable that at least one
will occur in the future. At the moment the most serious
concern is H5 avian influenza in chickens in south-east
Asia. If this virus learns to transmit from human to human
then it could sweep rapidly around the world. The 1918
influenza outbreak caused 20m deaths in just one year:
more than all the people killed in the first world war.
A similar outbreak now could have a perhaps more devastating
impact.
"It is not in the interests of a virus to kill all of
its hosts, so a virus is unlikely to wipe out the human
race, but it could cause a serious setback for a number
of years. We can never be completely prepared for what
nature will do: nature is the ultimate bioterrorist."
Chance of a viral pandemic in the next 70 years: Very
high
Danger score: 3
4: Terrorism
Professor Paul Wilkinson is chairman of the advisory
board for the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political
Violence at the University of St Andrews:
"Today's society is more vulnerable to terrorism because
it is easier for a malevolent group to get hold of the
necessary materials, technology and expertise to make
weapons of mass destruction. The most likely cause of
large scale, mass-casualty terrorism right now is from
a chemical or biological weapon. The large-scale release
of something like anthrax, the smallpox virus, or the
plague, would have a huge effect, and modern communications
would quickly make it become a trans-national problem.
"In an open society, where we value freedoms of movement,
we can't guarantee stopping an attack, and there is a
very high probability that a major attack will occur somewhere
in the world, within our lifetimes."
Chances of a major terrorist attack in the next 70 years:
Very high
Danger score: 2
5: Nuclear war
Air Marshal Lord Garden is Liberal Democrat defence
spokesman and author of Can Deterrence Last?:
"In theory, a nuclear war could destroy the human civilisation
but in practice I think the time of that danger has probably
passed. There are three potential nuclear flashpoints
today: the Middle East, India-Pakistan and North Korea.
Of these, North Korea is the most worrying, with a hair-trigger,
conventional army that might start a war by accident.
But I like to believe the barriers against using a nuclear
weapon remain high because of the way we have developed
an international system to restrain nuclear use.
"The probability of nuclear war on a global scale is
low, even if there remains the possibility of nuclear
use by a rogue state or fanatical extremists."
Chance of a global nuclear war in the next 70 years:
Low
Danger score: 8
6: Meteorite impact
Donald Yeomans is manager of Nasa's Near Earth
Object Program Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
in California:
"Over very long timescales, the risk of you dying as
a result of a near-Earth object impact is roughly equivalent
to the risk of dying in an aeroplane accident. To cause
a serious setback to our civilisation, the impactor would
have to be around 1.5km wide or larger. We expect an event
of this type every million years on average. The dangers
associated with such a large impactor include an enormous
amount of dust in the atmosphere, which would substantially
shut down sunlight for weeks, thus affecting plant life
and crops that sustain life. There would be global firestorms
as a result of re-entering hot ejecta and severe acid
rain. All of these effects are relatively short-term,
so the most adaptable species (cockroaches and humans,
for example) would be likely to survive."
Chance of the Earth being hit by a large asteroid in
the next 70 years: Medium
Danger score: 5
7: Robots taking over
Hans Moravec is a research professor at Carnegie
Mellon University's Robotics Institute in Pittsburgh:
"Robot controllers double in complexity (processing power)
every year or two. They are now barely at the lower range
of vertebrate complexity, but should catch up with us
within a half-century. By 2050 I predict that there will
be robots with humanlike mental power, with the ability
to abstract and generalise.
"These intelligent machines will grow from us, learn
our skills, share our goals and values, and can be viewed
as children of our minds. Not only will these robots look
after us in the home, but they will also carry out complex
tasks that currently require human input, such as diagnosing
illness and recommending a therapy or cure. They will
be our heirs and will offer us the best chance we'll ever
get for immortality by uploading ourselves into advanced
robots."
Chance of super-intelligent robots in the next 70 years:
High
Danger score: 8
8: Cosmic ray blast from exploding star
Nir Shaviv is a senior lecturer in physics at
the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel:
"Once every few decades a massive star from our galaxy,
the Milky Way, runs out of fuel and explodes, in what
is known as a supernova. Cosmic rays (high-energy particles
like gamma rays) spew out in all directions and if the
Earth happens to be in the way, they can trigger an ice
age. If the Earth already has a cold climate then an extra
burst of cosmic rays could make things really icy and
perhaps cause a number of species to become extinct. The
Earth is at greatest risk when it passes through a spiral
arm of the Milky Way, where most of the supernova occur.
This happens approximately every 150m years. Paleoclimate
indicators show that there has been a corresponding cold
period on Earth, with more ice at the poles and many ice
ages during these times.
"We are nearly out of the Sagittarius-Carina arm of the
Milky Way now and Earth should have a warmer climate in
a few million years. But, in around 60m years we will
enter the Perseus arm and ice-house conditions are likely
to dominate again."
Chance of encountering a supernova in the next 70 years:
Low
Danger score: 4
9: Super-volcanos
Professor Bill McGuire is director of the Benfield
Hazard Research Centre at University College London and
a member of Tony Blair's Natural Hazards working group:
"Approximately every 50,000 years the Earth experiences
a super-volcano. More than 1,000 sq km of land can be
obliterated by pyroclastic ash flows, the surrounding
continent is coated in ash and sulphur gases are injected
into the atmosphere, making a thin veil of sulphuric acid
all around the globe and reflecting back sunlight for
years to come. Daytime becomes no brighter than a moonlit
night.
"The global damage from a super-volcano depends on where
it is and how long the gas stays in the atmosphere. Taupo
in New Zealand was the most recent super-volcano, around
26,500 years ago. However, the most damaging super-volcano
in human history was Toba, on Sumatra, Indonesia, 74,000
years ago. Because it was fairly close to the equator
it injected gas quickly into both hemispheres. Ice core
data shows that temperatures were dramatically reduced
for five to six years afterwards, with freezing conditions
right down to the tropics.
"A super-volcano is 12 times more likely than a large
meteorite impact. There is a 0.15% probability that one
will happen in your lifetime. Places to watch now are
those that have erupted in the past, such as Yellowstone
in the US and Toba. But, even more worryingly, a super-volcano
could also burst out from somewhere that has never erupted
before, such as under the Amazon rainforest."
Chance of a super-volcano in the next 70 years: Very
high
Danger score: 7
10: Earth swallowed by a black hole
Richard Wilson is Mallinckrodt Research Professor
of Physics at Harvard University in the US:
"Around seven years ago, when the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider was being built at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory in New York, there was a worry that a state
of dense matter could be formed that had never been created
before. At the time this was the largest particle accelerator
to have been built, making gold ions crash head on with
immense force. The risk was that this might form a stage
that was sufficiently dense to be like a black hole, gathering
matter from the outside. Would the Brookhaven labs (and
perhaps the entire Earth) end up being swallowed by a
black hole created by the new accelerator?
"Using the information we already know from black holes
in outer space, we did some calculations to find out if
the Brookhaven particle accelerator was capable of forming
such a black hole. We are now pretty certain this state
of matter won't form at Brookhaven and that the Earth
won't be swallowed when these particles collide."
Chance of Earth being gobbled up by a black hole in the
next 70 years: Exceedingly low
Danger score: 10
|
A meteorite that residents
described as a "huge ball of fire" was spotted
on Wednesday over the eastern Spanish regions of Catalonia
and Valencia, according to astronomers in the region.
"We received scores of calls from witnesses, who
at first thought it was an asteroid flashing past. But
judging from its size, it was a meteorite," said
a spokesperson for a Catalonia-based astronomers' association.
Motorists spotted the glowing sphere from the motorway
linking Spain with southern France and reported seeing
it break up into fragments.
The meteorite glowed a greenish hue as it sped through
the atmosphere on a northeast-southeast trajectory.
"That leads us to think it fell into the sea,"
the spokesperson said.
The observatory at Valencia University said it estimates
the celestial body was travelling at around 10 000kph
when it entered the atmosphere. |
|
The revised Torino scale. Click here
for larger chart. |
Astronomers led by an MIT professor have revised the
scale used to assess the threat of asteroids and comets
colliding with Earth to better communicate those risks
with the public.
The overall goal is to provide easy-to-understand information
to assuage concerns about a potential doomsday collision
with our planet.
The Torino scale, a risk-assessment system similar to
the Richter scale used for earthquakes, was adopted by
a working group of the International Astronomical Union
(IAU) in 1999 at a meeting in Torino, Italy.
On the scale, zero means virtually no chance of collision,
while 10 means certain global catastrophe.
"The idea was to create a simple system conveying
clear, consistent information about near-Earth objects
[NEOs]," or asteroids and comets that appear to be
heading toward the planet, said Richard Binzel, a professor
in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary
Sciences and the creator of the scale.
Some critics, however, said that the original Torino
scale was actually scaring people, "the opposite
of what was intended," said Binzel. Hence the revisions.
"For a newly discovered NEO, the revised scale still
ranks the impact hazard from 0 to 10, and the calculations
that determine the hazard level are still exactly the
same," Binzel said.
The difference is that the wording for each category
now better describes the attention or response merited
for each.
For example, in the original scale NEOs of level 2-4
were described as "meriting concern." The revised
scale describes objects with those rankings as "meriting
attention by astronomers" -not necessarily the public.
Equally important in the revisions, says Binzel, "is
the emphasis on how continued tracking of an object is
almost always likely to reduce the hazard level to 0,
once sufficient data are obtained."
The general process of classifying NEO hazards is roughly
analogous to hurricane forecasting. Predictions of a storm's
path are updated as more and more tracking data are collected.
According to Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, manager of NASA's
Near Earth Object Program Office, "The revisions
in the Torino Scale should go a long way toward assuring
the public that while we cannot always immediately rule
out Earth impacts for recently discovered near-Earth objects,
additional observations will almost certainly allow us
to do so."
The highest Torino level ever given an asteroid was a
4 last December, with a 2 percent chance of hitting Earth
in 2029.
And after extended tracking of the asteroid's orbit,
it was reclassified to level 0, effectively no chance
of collision, "the outcome correctly emphasized by
level 4 as being most likely," Binzel said.
"It is just a matter of the scale becoming more
well known and understood. Just as there is little or
no reason for public concern over a magnitude 3 earthquake,
there is little cause for public attention for NEO close
encounters having low values on the Torino scale."
He notes that an object must reach level 8 on the scale
before there is a certainty of an impact capable of causing
even localized destruction.
The Torino scale was developed because astronomers are
spotting more and more NEOs through projects like the
Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Research project at MIT's
Lincoln Laboratory.
"There's no increase in the number of asteroids
out there or how frequently they encounter our planet.
What's changed is our awareness of them," Binzel
notes.
As a result, astronomers debated whether they should
keep potential NEO collisions secret or "be completely
open with what we know when we know it," Binzel said.
The IAU working group, of which Binzel is secretary, resoundingly
decided on the latter.
The revised wording of the scale was published last fall
in a chapter of "Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and
Asteroids" (Cambridge University Press). The revisions
were undertaken through consultation with astronomers
worldwide for nearly a year before being published.
Binzel concludes that "the chance of something hitting
the Earth and having a major impact is very unlikely.
But although unlikely, it is still not impossible. The
only way to be certain of no asteroid impacts in the forecast
is to keep looking." |
Intense wind leaves
Wildwood residents breathless at its speed and strength
A freak wind blew through Wildwood last week, leaving
some residents wondering if it was a mini-tornado.
People experienced the strange phenomenon just after
10 pm on Wednesday, April 6. Because it was dark out,
no one saw a funnel cloud, but the impact led to speculation
it was some kind of tornado.
John Harris, who lives on Nass Street, was inside his
home when the gust hit. "It popped my screen door
open, right from the lock," he said. "It pushed
my window in. I have the old wooden-style windows and
I saw it go in and go out."
Harris said he thought the wind must have been close
to 80 miles an hour at that point. "But it only lasted
less than five minutes. It was just there and it came,
and poof, it was gone."
John Harris, his son who lives on Lund Highway close
to the Top of the Hill store, said his whole house moved.
"It was an incredible feeling," he said. "It
wasn't like an earthquake shake, it was definitely like
my house moved. It was interesting. Then that was it.
It was over."
Cassia DePape, who also lives on Nass Street, felt the
wind as well. "The pane on the window was shaking,"
she said. "It got really intense, and all of a sudden
it was over."
A large branch from a weeping willow tree snapped off
during the windstorm, landing a few metres away from her
house.
DePape didn't see the branch fall, but her next-door
neighbour, Jennifer Laycraft, did. "I was shocked,"
she said. "It was huge. I've never seen anything
like that."
Laycraft said she thought there had been an earthquake.
"My walls started shifting and my roof felt like
it was going to fly off."
There were rain showers that night in the area, but the
Powell River weather station recorded winds at six kilometres
an hour from southwest at the time of the strong winds
in Wildwood. |
Indonesian scientists
today were closely monitoring three volcanoes that have
rumbled into life – activity they link to last December’s
monster earthquake off the coast of Sumatra Island and
the countless other powerful tremors that followed.
Thousands of people have been evacuated from the slopes
of Mount Talang in west Sumatra, which erupted on Tuesday,
showering dust over nearby villages and spreading panic
among villagers.
Today, many of the villagers returned home to tend their
crops and animals, but were planning to return to makeshift
camps and public buildings like schools and mosques for
the night.
Authorities have declared the other two – Anak
Krakatoa off Sumatra’s southern tip and Tangkuban
Perahu in west Java province – off limits to hikers,
citing a build up of gas inside the peaks and increase
in volcanic eruptions.
Scientists have been dispatched to all three mountains,
but there were no signs of imminent eruption, said Syamsul
Rizal, a government volcanologist.
Rizal, who was speaking from a monitoring
station on Tangkuban Perahu, said he suspected that “the
activities at these volcanoes were triggered by the December
26 tremor under the Indian Ocean seabed of Sumatra.”
The 9.1 magnitude earthquake in December triggered the
Indian Ocean tsunami. Three months later, an 8.7 magnitude
quake erupted from the same fault line, killing more than
600 people on islands off Sumatra’s west coast.
The mountains are among at least
129 active volcanoes in Indonesia, the world’s largest
archipelago nation. The country is especially prone
to seismological activity because it is part of the Pacific
“Ring of Fire” – a series of volcanoes
and fault lines stretching from the Western Hemisphere
through Japan and Southeast Asia.
Anak Krakatoa is a small volcanic island that appeared
in the 1930s on the site of the former volcano of Krakatoa,
which produced the world’s most powerful explosion
when it erupted in 1883 and killed an estimated 36,000
people.
Anak Krakatoa – “Krakatoa’s Child”
– erupted repeatedly in 1999, spewing volcanic gases
and rocks into the air. |
Hundreds of Cambodians were left
homeless after a violent storm badly damaged 72 houses
in central Kampong Thom province earlier this week,
police said.
Huot Sarim, Stong district police chief, said the storm
formed over Cambodia's Tonle Sap Lake Sunday and ripped
into the mostly wooden and thatch houses in two district
communes.
"Some people ran away and some sheltered under
their houses, but luckily most people were still busy
working outside when it hit, and most of the cows and
buffaloes were still in the rice fields," he told
AFP.
"Afterwards we found 72 houses were damaged. A
few people were slightly injured and some cows were
wounded too."
He said last year a similar storm destroyed 90 houses
in the area. [...] |
If the stuffed crocodile
carrying a tray of wooden cups is anything to go by,
North Korea's father and son dictators have no limits
on the bizarre when accepting tokens of "boundless
reverence".
Among the other 296,000 gifts to Kim Il-Sung and Kim
Jong-Il at their "International Friendship Exhibition"
are the head of a bear personally shot by former Romanian
dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and a stuffed white crane
from US Christian evangelist Billy Graham.
The exhibition, in two enormous marble and granite
buildings about 90 minutes' drive from the capital of
Pyongyang, is hailed as proof the world does not share
US President George W. Bush's loathsome opinion of the
Kims. [...] |
For some young adults, spirituality
goes hand in hand with religious practice. For others,
it is a substitute. Regardless, young Americans are
actively engaged in spiritual questions, two new surveys
indicate, even if they may not be exploring them in
traditional ways.
One of the surveys, of more than 100,000
freshmen who started college last fall, found four in
five reporting an interest in spirituality, with three
in four searching for meaning or purpose in life, and
the same proportion discussing the meaning of life with
friends.
The students starting college expected their institutions
to help them explore such questions. And while an even
higher proportion, more than 90 percent, said they expect
their college to prepare them for employment, the authors
noted that the results challenge the view of young Americans
as crassly materialistic.
"They are looking inwardly and they are searching
for ways to cultivate their inner selves," said
Helen Astin, professor emeritus of higher education
and a senior scholar UCLA's Higher Education Research
Institute, which produced the survey of college freshman
released Wednesday in Washington.
A separate survey of 1,325 18-25 year-olds released
earlier this week by Reboot, a Jewish networking group,
and several collaborating organizations, emphasizes
the degree to which young people are confronting religious
issues informally, through conversations and even Christian
rock music rather than formal religious practice.
While 44 percent of respondents called
themselves "religious," 35 percent said they
are "spiritual but not religious" and 18 percent
said neither.
At Roanoke College, in Salem, Va., where he has been
chaplain for more than 20 years, Paul Henrickson said
he is quite familiar with the "spiritual but not
religious" phenomenon.
"You have a lot of kids that understand in their
hearts that there is a mystery about life that is larger
than they are and larger than they understand, and they
would call that 'spiritual.' And they are very interested
in that," Henrickson said.
But, he added, "they pursue
that in private ways" and "in kind of a shotgun
approach. They'll look at all kinds of things from Eastern
religions to yoga to New Age stuff to the standard Christianity.
But they are unlikely to have that solid commitment
to a religious institution (like) church membership."
Still, many students view spirituality as a complement
to their religious beliefs. In the UCLA survey, for
instance, Mormons, Baptists and nontraditional Christians
all exhibited high degrees of both spirituality and
religious engagement as measured by such things as praying,
attending services and reading sacred texts.
Students exhibiting high religious
engagement were more likely to have conservative social
views, though some issues like the death penalty and
affirmative action do not conform to the pattern. [...]
|
DALLAS - The shooting last week
of a Texas high school football coach - allegedly by
a player's father - was just the latest and most extreme
example of the threats and assaults that teachers around
the country say they are increasingly being subjected
to by parents.
"I know teachers really feel they're in a pressure
cooker," said Aimee Bolender, president of Alliance/AFT,
a Dallas teachers union. "The respect for authority
has definitely changed. Teachers are no longer respected
in general."
In Philadelphia in September, a mother
slapped a teacher three times in the face after he told
her she needed to get a late slip for her daughter,
state officials say. In Dallas, a teacher got into a
hair-pulling fight with a mother April 1 after scolding
the woman's daughter for loitering outside a locker.
The mother is herself a teacher at a Dallas high school.
Educators attribute the assaults and arguments, in
part, to a general decline in civility and the intense
competition these days to get into the right colleges.
Lisa Jacobson, chief executive of the tutoring and
test preparation business Inspirica, said teachers have
told her they are overwhelmed by pushy parents.
"They feel like the parents come
in as CEOs and order them around," Jacobson said.
"I've seen many cases of parents going into schools
and coercing teachers to change grades."
Also, parents are more stressed-out than they used
to be - working one or more jobs, or running single-parent
households - and may be more likely to lash out at their
children's teachers, said Doug Fiore, a Virginia elementary
school principal who co-wrote a book for teachers called
"Dealing With Difficult Parents." [...]
While no national education organization keeps statistics
on assaults and threats against teachers by parents,
many educators say they have seen an unmistakable rise
in tensions.
Lee Alvoid, a retired principal in
suburban Dallas, said that toward the end of her 32-year
career, parent-teacher conferences had become so tense
that she sometimes asked security guards to stand outside
her office.
The Issaquah school district outside Seattle adopted
a "civility policy" in 2001 to teach everyone
- parents, students, teachers and administrators - how
to communicate courteously because conversations were
becoming more confrontational.
"You listen to the talk show
hosts on the radio, you watch the confrontational programs
on TV. We're all more sharp and pointed and critical
and demanding of each other," district spokeswoman
Mary Waggoner said.
The Philadelphia school system is working to teach
parents how to represent their children's interests
more effectively and is giving teachers training in
conflict resolution, said Claudia Averette, the district's
chief of staff.
In light of the shooting in East Texas, the Texas High
School Coaches Association may adopt a conflict resolution
program, said D. W. Rutledge, executive vice president.
"If it's in society, it's going
to be in our schools," Rutledge said. "We
see a lot more things that are shocking as far as how
people are approaching things." |
Readers
who wish to know more about who we are and what we do may visit
our portal site Quantum
Future
Remember,
we need your help to collect information on what is going on in
your part of the world!
We also need help to keep
the Signs of the Times online.
Send
your comments and article suggestions to us
Fair Use Policy Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.
|